Jump to content

How does the club want to determine when a car's VPI gets reviewed?


Recommended Posts

I have some opinions on this, but I would like input on how the leadership should decide if or when a car that is currently on the list and being raced should have it's VPI value evaluated/re-evaluated.

 

A few givens:

  • All VPI's are not exactly where they should be when they are first put on the list.
  • A lot of factors go into a team's end result other than their car's VPI.
  • Cars perform differently at different tracks and conditions.

 

There are a whole lot of other things to say on the subject, but I'll let the respondents make those points.

 

Edit:  Please don't use this thread as a place to grind an axe about a particular car unless it is to make a larger point on the more general question I am asking.

Edited by Rodger Coan-Burningham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure a consensus is possible with regards to metrics to change a vpi....

 

My .02$....

 

Triggers for looking at a vehicle vpi...

 

Multiple wins from same make and model 

 

AND (1 of the 2 scenarios below)

 

1) laptimes that are faster than the rest of the field (say 3 seconds clear of the 2nd fastest car) and can go near 2 hours on fuel.

 

 

 

2)laptimes that are significantly faster than 2nd place (say 5 seconds faster) but can NOT go 2 hours.

 

Andddd......  flame away.

 

I know it sounds like I just want everyone faster than me to be penalized.  That's not the case.  I am simply answering the questions with measurable values.  I don't really have a dog in this fight and generally I'm only jealous of a few cars values.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thought is that VPI reviews should be done prior to July 1st of the year.  Then a 6 month heads up to those that will see an increase or decrease in their VPI can be taken a bit easier. 

 

Similar to what Rob mentioned above, if a car comes in under 500pts and is automatically an out of the box monster, it needs looked at.  I think the boxster value being under 500pts. is suspect compared to other cars that are 500pts and above.  Just using that as an example.

 

That said, if we just keep making everything free to be added on to cars, it almost doesn't matter where you put some of these cars as the more modern ones seem to be relatively solid out of the box.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great thread, good example of a VPI gone wrong is my build, started building the 1984 Rabbit GTI in winter of 2019, was told by tech to use 1984 Rabbit, as the 1983 and 1984 Rabbits where not listed in the GTI column on the VPI lists. 1985 MKII were where the list started valuing the GTI, come the first race 2020 Frozen Rotors Classic the VPI tables had the 1983 and 1984 GTI listed as the same points as the later models! To my surprise fortunately I had not updated much at that time but could have been over 500 by the sudden add of 50 or 75 points. And the MK I models are not as fast as the MKII s on up. I felt like I was penalized for bringing up an omission on the VPI table. Though I believe that isn't the case it felt that way when I saw the change.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Champcar needs to keep moving more towards a consistent vision/mission and aligned goals and objectives.  

Do you want parity? participation?  a competitive cost cap? and in what order?

All of these would result in different methods of evaluating and implementing VPIs.  I think CCES has so many different ideas on rules and enforcement because everyone has a different idea of what the goal is.  

To me it seems CCES is doing a great job heading this direction, but I have yet to hear a vision outside of getting regular guys racing affordably.   No mention about whether its the cheapest, or the cheapest to be competitive, does parity mater?  What about pro drivers? etc.   There are attributes thrown in here and there like "we're a builder series" but refining that first into a unified vision/mission helps make answering questions about VPI re-evaluation a lot easier.  

That is the first thing I would address if CCES were my "business".  

Edited by LuckyKid
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, LuckyKid said:

Champcar needs to keep moving more towards a consistent vision/mission and aligned goals and objectives.  

Do you want parity? participation?  a competitive cost cap? and in what order?

All of these would result in different methods of evaluating and implementing VPIs.  I think CCES has so many different ideas on rules and enforcement because everyone has a different idea of what the goal is.  

To me it seems CCES is doing a great job heading this direction, but I have yet to hear a vision outside of getting regular guys racing affordably.   No mention about whether its the cheapest, or the cheapest to be competitive, does parity mater?  What about pro drivers? etc.   There are attributes thrown in here and there like "we're a builder series" but refining that first into a unified vision/mission helps make answering questions about VPI re-evaluation a lot easier.  

That is the first thing I would address if CCES were my "business".  

I've talked about exactly this!  All rules and valuations and changes to the rules should be looked at through the same lense that should be obvious to every champcar member.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LuckyKid said:

To me it seems CCES is doing a great job heading this direction, but I have yet to hear a vision outside of getting regular guys racing affordably.   No mention about whether its the cheapest, or the cheapest to be competitive, does parity mater?  What about pro drivers? etc.   There are attributes thrown in here and there like "we're a builder series" but refining that first into a unified vision/mission helps make answering questions about VPI re-evaluation a lot easier.  

That is the first thing I would address if CCES were my "business". 


You are going to have to explain a little more of how pro drivers and a vision for the business have anything to do with my question. 
 

In my view anyway, but why I asked for input because its not about me, the series should look for parity of competition. My question has to do with at what point do you step in and adjust when you think that might be out of balance. It’s really a lot more simple question than you are making it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rodger Coan-Burningham said:


You are going to have to explain a little more of how pro drivers and a vision for the business have anything to do with my question. 
 

In my view anyway, but why I asked for input because its not about me, the series should look for parity of competition. My question has to do with at what point do you step in and adjust when you think that might be out of balance. It’s really a lot more simple question than you are making it. 

So, I'll ask, are spec e46 and spec boxster builds what Champcar feels is equal to the less than 500pt. cars?  The problem that I see is not necessarily VPI starting points, but the free and reduced value of performance parts that make it difficult to build a low VPI car to compete with the "overdog" newer cars coming in. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rodger Coan-Burningham said:


You are going to have to explain a little more of how pro drivers and a vision for the business have anything to do with my question. 
 

But Rodger, every business needs a vision statement.

 

There might be a few cars currently racing that may need some adjustments, but I don’t have an answer other than the board needs to pay attention to races and are certain cars starting to pull away from the field.  If this is happening, then the board should take action. I also think it could be done multiple times a year if needed. Don’t want a potential or current team start building this new unicorn only to find out an adjustment is needed and kills their build.  

Not much of an answer, but if adjustments are needed, then they should be handled quickly with reasons given.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hotchkis23 said:

So, I'll ask, are spec e46 and spec boxster builds what Champcar feels is equal to the less than 500pt. cars?  The problem that I see is not necessarily VPI starting points, but the free and reduced value of performance parts that make it difficult to build a low VPI car to compete with the "overdog" newer cars coming in. 

 

Free and reduced value of parts are not pertinent to what I have asked for input on.  C'mon, miata guy, stick to the question.  When you were asleep on the pit wall the other night, you didn't fall off and hit your head did you?

 

So the question about spec E46 and Boxters does in a roundabout way get to the point.  If said cars run in races and something says they may need an adjustment, what is that something?  When and why does the series take an action to either give points to cars to bring them closer to the pack or not?  And what is closer to the pack? Is it overall speed?  Is it lap times.  Is it number of wins?  Is it PWR?  There is much more in all of those factors besides VPI so they can only be part of the picture.  You go to a race and a particular model car laps the exact same model, so there has to be more to it than VPI.  There needs to be some logic and process, and not just whack a mole that can be either misunderstood or have questions of bias.  Or we can do nothing, just let things ride with no changes to any car.  Will that keep the series healthy?  

 

I can't quite figure out what I want to convey.  I guess I am thinking something like if A, B, and C occur, then that car will be scrutinized.  That scrutiny might yield a VPI adjustment of X points and here is why.  If you have that car or are building that car, you aren't going to be happy, but at least you know it's coming.  Much too simplistic example, but I am just wondering if something like that is even possible.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With parity of competition do you want similar lap times or laps completed?

 

It's a pretty important distinction, as a car may be 5 seconds faster than another but if it needs 2 more pit stops suddenly it isn't an overdog even though it may appear that way on the fast lap chart. Something that is often overlooked here.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rodger Coan-Burningham said:

I can't quite figure out what I want to convey.

It's hard to convey as one would think the E30 must be undervalued since Huggins and Nate seem to win about every time out.

 

It's not. Their success is the result of years of tuning and work along with good driving.

 

Same as the Altima. "oops....."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bandit said:

With parity of competition do you want similar lap times or laps completed?

 

It's a pretty important distinction, as a car may be 5 seconds faster than another but if it needs 2 more pit stops suddenly it isn't an overdog even though it may appear that way on the fast lap chart. Something that is often overlooked here.

 

Good points.  It's going to be hard to have parity of lap times given the extensive list of cars on the list.  Fuel and the 5 min required pit stop creates some of the parity of laps completed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to consider only raising the VPI when multiple teams have run the car vs just one team going fast. 

Drivers play a huge roll in out right 1 lap pace, Our car is full of Pro level drivers. 

We have set FTD before in our S2000, Boxster and Altima, the common thread here is not the car but our driver line up. 

We also Run the Re71r Tires which everyone knows are 2 seconds per lap faster on most cars. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, hotchkis23 said:

So, I'll ask, are spec e46 and spec boxster builds what Champcar feels is equal to the less than 500pt. cars?  The problem that I see is not necessarily VPI starting points, but the free and reduced value of performance parts that make it difficult to build a low VPI car to compete with the "overdog" newer cars coming in. 

a True Spec E46 would start at 530 points because of 330 engine and with mods will be easily over 700

A True Spec boxster Starts at 475 and with mods is about 680

 

The cars you are seeing race arent "Spec" cars, but just newer cars built the same way as e30's and e36's of champ are built

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the5 said:

You need to consider only raising the VPI when multiple teams have run the car vs just one team going fast. 

Drivers play a huge roll in out right 1 lap pace, Our car is full of Pro level drivers. 

We have set FTD before in our S2000, Boxster and Altima, the common thread here is not the car but our driver line up. 

We also Run the Re71r Tires which everyone knows are 2 seconds per lap faster on most cars. 


This! 

 @Rodger Coan-Burningham  So you want parity, how about the rest of the board?  Do you want parity within a specific budget and parity for regular guys, or is the baseline set at pro drivers on hot tires?   Is it parity at the top or parity mid-pack?

I didn't see parity in the mission/vision either.  

You can set VPI either way but it will have a big impact on the series. 

Its like we were asked:  Guys I need to get to Paris, let me know how.  You'll get recommendations for different flights, cruise recommendations, some will take you through Europe sightseeing.    Instead if you ask "Guys I have a business meeting in 2 days in Paris, I want to see something on a layover, what would you recommend?"  Now you can start getting answers that make sense and are consistent with the overall goals.  

VPIs, Rules, Enforcement are all just tools to accomplish specific goals.  If everyone has a different idea of a goal, then you end up with different recommendations.  You see it in the board "pitches" when people run.  They talk about their visions for the series and sometimes pitch how its different than the current board direction.  The CEO is responsible for vision and the board should all sign off and endorse it.  

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addressing VPI is not a task I'd ever feel comfortable taking on by myself.  It needs to be driven with a specific goal in mind and will take several seasons to "get it right" with a lot of people complaining.  Every year the cars on the list get a little older and every year new cars "qualify" for our series.  The more modern cars, in many cases, should be faster right out of the box than the older cars, but to place them above 500 points might be detrimental to the longevity of the series.  Putting them at 500 points isn't fair to the older cars in the series that might also be 500 points.  Having a sliding scale and adjusting VPI of ALL cars in the series is a lot of work, in many cases unnecessary work at that. There are a lot of ways to do this, I'm not sure if any of them are bulletproof.

 

1. Pick a car that the series wants to be the bogey, make it 500 points with no mods.  Compare everything (hp/wt, aero, driveline config, suspension, brakes, etc.) and add/subtract from that 500 point number.  Very tedious and time consuming, tons of complaining to follow.

2. Plot make/model and as-raced VPI against finishing position, see what outliers exist.  Driver(s) plays a huge roll in this, so does low race participation by teams with an obscure car.

3. Cars added to the list of qualifying for our series are EC for the first season to properly assess how competitive they are, then assign a VPI.  This could be a problem if they are faster and now you loop back to solution 1? How many cars are in the field in that first year, do you get a true assessment?

4. Make VPI adjustments similar to the rules petitions each year.  Teams can nominate a car to be re-assessed based on factual data provided and the members vote on it.  There could be some piling on, but hopefully the masses "get it right".

 

I'm sure there are other (read: better) ideas, but I kinda like the idea of #4, it just doesn't address the series as a whole for long term adjustments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rodger Coan-Burningham said:

 

Good points.  It's going to be hard to have parity of lap times given the extensive list of cars on the list.  Fuel and the 5 min required pit stop creates some of the parity of laps completed.

Finishing position is all that matters in the end in my opinion. 

 

 

Edited by Bandit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bandit said:

Keep in mind I used the laps completed in those VPI suggestions as finishing position is all the really matters. Not lap time.

Though lap times by a mediocre team that are at the top of the charts would be a reason to evaluate it in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Timothy G. Elliott said:

Though lap times by a mediocre team that are at the top of the charts would be a reason to evaluate it in my opinion.

Who decides it's a "mediocre" team?

 

On the flip side, if Pobst, Kimi and Chase Elliot show up and stomp everyone with a 79 Cadillac are 79 Caddy's getting their VPI's raised?

Edited by Bandit
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bandit said:

Who decides it's a "mediocre" team?

 

On the flip side, if Pobst, Kimi and Chase Elliot show up and stomp everyone with a 79 Cadillac are 79 Caddy's getting their VPI's raised?

If they do it enough times (3 times in a year for example)....  sure.  

 

They are showing the true potential of a team.

 

I'm not really sure we need to worry about lesser drivers or teams.  Those teams and drivers are most likely not at the front of the field.  Don't we want to worry about the BEST the vehicle can be?

 

One note....  this would require extra scrutiny of the car in question.  Does it have anything out of line? 

 

Cams are not being teched afaik.  (For example)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

If they do it enough times (3 times in a year for example)....  sure.  

 

They are showing the true potential of a team.

 

I'm not really sure we need to worry about lesser drivers or teams.  Those teams and drivers are most likely not at the front of the field.  Don't we want to worry about the BEST the vehicle can be?

 

One note....  this would require extra scrutiny of the car in question.  Does it have anything out of line? 

 

Cams are not being teched afaik.  (For example)

Though cams are in the rules and protestable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rodger Coan-Burningham said:

I have some opinions on this, but I would like input on how the leadership should decide if or when a car that is currently on the list and being raced should have it's VPI value evaluated/re-evaluated.

 

A few givens:

  • All VPI's are not exactly where they should be when they are first put on the list.
  • A lot of factors go into a team's end result other than their car's VPI.
  • Cars perform differently at different tracks and conditions.

 

There are a whole lot of other things to say on the subject, but I'll let the respondents make those points.

 

Edit:  Please don't use this thread as a place to grind an axe about a particular car unless it is to make a larger point on the more general question I am asking.

1. When a significant (you decide what that is) percentage of the field is running that car.

2. When a significant percentage of wins for the year feature that car.

3. When a significant percentage of the podium positions at a particular race feature that car.

4. In cases 1-3, when the significant percentages mentioned are noticably out of proportion to the percentage of cars that they represent in the field.   

 

This assumes that Champcar wants diversity. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, wvumtnbkr said:

If they do it enough times (3 times in a year for example)....  sure.  

 

They are showing the true potential of a team.

 

I'm not really sure we need to worry about lesser drivers or teams.  Those teams and drivers are most likely not at the front of the field.  Don't we want to worry about the BEST the vehicle can be?

 

One note....  this would require extra scrutiny of the car in question.  Does it have anything out of line? 

 

Cams are not being teched afaik.  (For example)

 

14 minutes ago, Timothy G. Elliott said:

Though cams are in the rules and protestable.

 

They are, but cams are not something that is easily checked. Just look at NHRA stock eliminator, or various circle track cams that measure “stock” yet are anything but stock

Edited by mhr650
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LuckyKid said:

So you want parity, how about the rest of the board?  Do you want parity within a specific budget and parity for regular guys, or is the baseline set at pro drivers on hot tires?   Is it parity at the top or parity mid-pack?

 

First, although I do have an opinion it's not what I want, I am asking what the club wants.  I can't speak for the other board members but I would guess they feel the same way. 

 

You can't control budget, so that's not an option.  If a team wants to spend $40k building a champcar boxter to our rules how would you keep them from doing it?  And why would you want to?  You can't control who is in the car, so that's out.  We welcome every driver that wants to sign up, rookie or pro. 

 

I would guess it has to be some mix of parity at the top as well as mid pack but the focus would have to be at the top because it's the main thing you are measuring.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...