-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Autocross- SCCA EV-X Class vs. SS
- Thread starter RacerChris
- Start date
Why are they going with the dumb standard of only EV's need to make noise? It should be a noise threshold below 15 MPH for all cars. It's particularly dumb that it needs to not emulate an ICE car. Why? If the ICE car noise is sufficient to be safe in the pits, why is it only sufficient on ICE cars? Is it important you know you're about to be run over by an EV instead of a V8?
Let's suggest to the SEB that all safety technologies get backdated, such as:
All cars must have backup cameras
All cars must have functioning TPMS
All cars must have ABS
All cars must have functional airbags
All cars must have seatbelts with pretensioners
All cars must have stability control active
In all seriousness, there is a feedback process, and we do need to make our comments. They need to know there are many "classic" EV's without noisemakers and no retrofit, and that the risk of HV exposure is basically zero until you cut up the car. The Model 3 emergency responder guide doesn't even suggest gloves or a hook.
Let's suggest to the SEB that all safety technologies get backdated, such as:
All cars must have backup cameras
All cars must have functioning TPMS
All cars must have ABS
All cars must have functional airbags
All cars must have seatbelts with pretensioners
All cars must have stability control active
In all seriousness, there is a feedback process, and we do need to make our comments. They need to know there are many "classic" EV's without noisemakers and no retrofit, and that the risk of HV exposure is basically zero until you cut up the car. The Model 3 emergency responder guide doesn't even suggest gloves or a hook.
Lindenwood
Active Member
I get silly biases and prejudices among the masses, but it is disappointing to see nationally-recognized Motorsports bodies clearly making so many decisions based on FUD and rumors.
It honestly feels like the “research” fueling some of these rules came from the comments section of some “Tesla beats Mustang” YouTube clip.
It honestly feels like the “research” fueling some of these rules came from the comments section of some “Tesla beats Mustang” YouTube clip.
SK360
Member
To be fair
1.3. Interpretation
Interpreting these supplemental competition rules shall be logical as they cannot cover all possible situations. Words such as “shall” or “shall not”, “will” or “will not”, “cannot”, “may not”, “are” or “must” are mandatory; and words such as “may” and “should” are permissive.
The noisemaker rule says should so I think it will be up to the local site
That will absolutely happen and needs to be addressed, probably preemptively. And it's probably just a matter of time before some homebrew Modified EV entry catches fire or zaps someone.
But the vast majority of EV drivers showing up in production cars shouldn't be alienated because of that.
Except nationals and national tours will probably enforce it, or someone will protest it.
Model Y is getting track mode with latest update.
1) SCCA needs a "CUV" class that the Model Y can dominate!
2) I wonder if this means all track modes have any additional functionality or tuning?
1) SCCA needs a "CUV" class that the Model Y can dominate!
2) I wonder if this means all track modes have any additional functionality or tuning?
I've always wondered- if your vehicle is high enough to drive OVER cones without knocking them down, is that allowed? As long as at least one tire goes inside the course, I think it should count as a legal gate.
I finally found some time to send a message to the SCCA about the EV safety rules. It's good to see them considering EV's. But this is also our time to get the rules right, especially for stock, OEM manufactured, street driven vehicles. The more of us that share comments, the better. My high level comments for you to riff off:
1) Risk comes from voltage and total battery capacity, not the fact a car is an "EV." The rules should apply to anything with more than 60V onboard, or more than X kWh of energy, even if that is not used for tractive power.
1a) This applies to Hybrids especially. The NSX is dominant in SS and is a hybrid, and should be included. You should not be able to carry a 0.049cc model airplane motor around with you, call it a hybrid, and get out of these rules.
2) Not all EV's came with noisemakers from the factory. These should be grandfathered. The rule for no engine noises is dumb- the US rules allow an engine noise, and Europe requires it because it's recognizable. The copyright rule is dumb, because for all you know the noise a Prius makes is copyrighted- almost everything humans make is copyrighted
3) "powertrain" is undefined. Generically, the powertrain is from the output of the motor to the wheels. This doc often says "unmodified OEM powertrain" when it clearly is concerned with electrical risks. A car should not become a non-OEM powertrain car because it has different wheels, brakes, or even a diff.
4) The lightning logo is over the top for cars that are clearly electric like all Teslas, especially in classes that are exclusively EV and are already labeled that way like the EV solo class or the new XE.
5) Clubs should not be allowed to turn away OEM EV's just because they do not have the safety equipment. These are cars that are driven on the street around the public all the time, and do not exhibit such a high level of risk that we should deny them the opportunity to participate because of a very low unique risk. We do not investigate the exact fuel and other risks all cars pose when they participate.
1) Risk comes from voltage and total battery capacity, not the fact a car is an "EV." The rules should apply to anything with more than 60V onboard, or more than X kWh of energy, even if that is not used for tractive power.
1a) This applies to Hybrids especially. The NSX is dominant in SS and is a hybrid, and should be included. You should not be able to carry a 0.049cc model airplane motor around with you, call it a hybrid, and get out of these rules.
2) Not all EV's came with noisemakers from the factory. These should be grandfathered. The rule for no engine noises is dumb- the US rules allow an engine noise, and Europe requires it because it's recognizable. The copyright rule is dumb, because for all you know the noise a Prius makes is copyrighted- almost everything humans make is copyrighted
3) "powertrain" is undefined. Generically, the powertrain is from the output of the motor to the wheels. This doc often says "unmodified OEM powertrain" when it clearly is concerned with electrical risks. A car should not become a non-OEM powertrain car because it has different wheels, brakes, or even a diff.
4) The lightning logo is over the top for cars that are clearly electric like all Teslas, especially in classes that are exclusively EV and are already labeled that way like the EV solo class or the new XE.
5) Clubs should not be allowed to turn away OEM EV's just because they do not have the safety equipment. These are cars that are driven on the street around the public all the time, and do not exhibit such a high level of risk that we should deny them the opportunity to participate because of a very low unique risk. We do not investigate the exact fuel and other risks all cars pose when they participate.
So I found some time to do some analysis on the 2022 PAX for EV's. I also wrote Rick about this.
I personally looked at EVERY event I could find in CA, AZ, FL, PA, NY, WA, and OR in 2022. Seemed like a reasonably representative set of states for Autocross (plus, it included a lot of us here
). I also looked at National Tour events, but no EV was ever PAX competitive there.
Out of this, I found 120 events with some sort of competitive EV that showed up. Not bad. Lots more events with EV's that were much more mid pack. We're not dealing with small numbers here.
Of that 120, 76 events had an EV place in the 105% threshold to be considered in PAX and driven by good drivers. Neat!
Of those 76, 31 cars beat the 102.5% threshold to be considered "fast." (9 of those were the same person in the same small southern AZ group)
So per the PAX process, that means 31 events increased the PAX, while 45 events decreased it. The 2022->2023 PAX should have gone down, yet it went up.
I wrote Rick, and he said that he considers EV to be a "developing" class, and because of this, he adjusts it by hand. Because Brian Peters ran in 2021 in AZ and did really well on the same 40 second courses, the car must be very very fast, and thus a 2023 PAX increase is justified, despite the normal PAX process showing otherwise. (Brian Peters also set top PAX every time he ran in 2019, 2020, and 2022, all in non-EV's. He's an Alien. Yet the BS PAX didn't change at all this year.)
We've had an EV PAX since 2020- it's far beyond a developing class at this point, and having 100+ events a year with an EV hitting the 105% threshold means that there is no reason not to use the same process we use for all other classes, including low volume classes like AM/BM.
I've written Rick back to request that he re-consider his process for 2023. I'll let you know how it goes. If Rick stays with this process, we should all get the word out that PAX is not calculated the way Rick claims it is, and possibly petition the SCCA to stop referencing it in their national tour events, at least for EV's.
P.S. - Per my calculations, 2023 EV PAX should be 0.831 (-0.004 from 2022, and just a 0.002 under SS). But I don't have all the data nor know Rick's exact process.
I personally looked at EVERY event I could find in CA, AZ, FL, PA, NY, WA, and OR in 2022. Seemed like a reasonably representative set of states for Autocross (plus, it included a lot of us here
). I also looked at National Tour events, but no EV was ever PAX competitive there.Out of this, I found 120 events with some sort of competitive EV that showed up. Not bad. Lots more events with EV's that were much more mid pack. We're not dealing with small numbers here.
Of that 120, 76 events had an EV place in the 105% threshold to be considered in PAX and driven by good drivers. Neat!
Of those 76, 31 cars beat the 102.5% threshold to be considered "fast." (9 of those were the same person in the same small southern AZ group)
So per the PAX process, that means 31 events increased the PAX, while 45 events decreased it. The 2022->2023 PAX should have gone down, yet it went up.
I wrote Rick, and he said that he considers EV to be a "developing" class, and because of this, he adjusts it by hand. Because Brian Peters ran in 2021 in AZ and did really well on the same 40 second courses, the car must be very very fast, and thus a 2023 PAX increase is justified, despite the normal PAX process showing otherwise. (Brian Peters also set top PAX every time he ran in 2019, 2020, and 2022, all in non-EV's. He's an Alien. Yet the BS PAX didn't change at all this year.)
We've had an EV PAX since 2020- it's far beyond a developing class at this point, and having 100+ events a year with an EV hitting the 105% threshold means that there is no reason not to use the same process we use for all other classes, including low volume classes like AM/BM.
I've written Rick back to request that he re-consider his process for 2023. I'll let you know how it goes. If Rick stays with this process, we should all get the word out that PAX is not calculated the way Rick claims it is, and possibly petition the SCCA to stop referencing it in their national tour events, at least for EV's.
P.S. - Per my calculations, 2023 EV PAX should be 0.831 (-0.004 from 2022, and just a 0.002 under SS). But I don't have all the data nor know Rick's exact process.
Good stuff. To make matters worse, I think Rick actually considers 102% to be the "median," not 102.5%.
If 102% is the median, it becomes 28 / 48.
Fun analysis: Is a M3P better at a short course or a long course? Answer: It doesn't matter.
Fun analysis: Is a M3P better at a short course or a long course? Answer: It doesn't matter.
Not the picture to answer this tho. Drop people who were never within 105% once, and then plot ALL results for the rest.
In general, I think it's not the length of the course, but the design. One can have a short course with almost no acceleration zones, and one can have a long course with very slow corners followed by long wide-open stretches.
Well, a nice holiday treat:
I went back and forth with Rick a few times. He had some misconceptions about the Teslas that I corrected and that made him re-evaluate.
He's adjusting the PAX foe EV for 2023 based just on his normal process. What more could we want?
The 2023 PAX will be 0.832, 0.001 slower than SS, and .003 slower than 2022.
I went back and forth with Rick a few times. He had some misconceptions about the Teslas that I corrected and that made him re-evaluate.
He's adjusting the PAX foe EV for 2023 based just on his normal process. What more could we want?
The 2023 PAX will be 0.832, 0.001 slower than SS, and .003 slower than 2022.
Lindenwood
Active Member
Nice job!
How can we send you some beer/liquid of your choosing? This will save me from buying Hohos.
Similar threads
