PDA

View Full Version : November FasTrack is up



Bill Miller
10-01-2003, 09:54 PM
Here.

http://www.scca.org/news/tech/fastrack/03-...11-fastrack.pdf (http://www.scca.org/news/tech/fastrack/03-11-fastrack.pdf)

Some interesting comments about the ITS E36 318is.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

ITA_CRX
10-02-2003, 08:27 AM
Is it just me or is there nothing about letters to the Comp Board in this one?

Jamie

Geezer
10-02-2003, 12:54 PM
Ah. The answer to the mystery of IT classification, right there on page f-293:

“During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club assesses vehicle performance factors such as-but not limited to-manufacturer's published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight is established.”

Could it be any clearer?

924Guy
10-02-2003, 02:49 PM
Ah, indeed, and it gets even more entertaining! I see my car's now classified for limited prep FP... at 400# less than it's IT weight! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Is that normal? Seems like it's time to dig out the GCR and compare some...

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

Banzai240
10-02-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Geezer:
Could it be any clearer?

Oh, you mean by specifying HOW each factor is used and how each is weighted in the overall "equation" for the "calculation" of the final weight??? Well.. YES, it could be clearer...

HOWEVER, it could also be made much simpler and more accurate by adding a single word to the final sentance:


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">\"Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight is emperically established.\"</font>

To be clear:


(From www.dictionary.com) (http://www.dictionary.com))
Emperical:
em·pir·i·cal( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pīr-kl) adj.

A. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

B. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.


That would eliminate the "need" to publish some formula that would likely turn the entire IT community upside down (as ANY formula would do) and would convey honestly and to the point how the classification process actually works... a process which, by the way, has traditionally worked just fine and has done a pretty good job of keeping things within reason...

Add to that the ability to make minor adjustments and/or reclassifications to correct for errors in judgement, and you have yourself a pretty level playing field... Unless, of course, you just don't trust any human being to make reasonable decisions and would rather spend your life in fear of black hellicopters and the batteries in your HP-48 going dead... In that case, no amount of verbage in a rule going to make you feel any better... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 02, 2003).]

planet6racing
10-02-2003, 03:26 PM
Heck, I was just happy to see them post anything related to it. It appears they haven't forgotten about us asking the question...


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

Knestis
10-02-2003, 04:31 PM
Sorry, Darin - you're on my turf now. You are completely and utterly misapplying the term "empirical."

"Empirical evidence" is that derived from true experimentation or other research (quasi-experiment, case study, ethnography, etc.) that, while perhaps grounded in "practical experience," is assumed to (a) apply recognized systemic methods, (B) use reliable and valid methods to collect data, © involve rigorous analysis of those data, (d) describe methods clearly enough that they can be replicated by others, and (e) share findings in settings that encourage critical review - like professional journals.

To suggest that the IT classification and specification process has EVER had ANY of these attributes is laughable.

The data considered in a study may indeed be qualitative but that does not excuse the researcher from any of the above methodological obligations: One can't just say, "Well, from my practical experience, the findings are..." and call it "empirical." That would technically be called "crapola."

You're a good guy, Darin but this is just so far off the mark...

K

Banzai240
10-02-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Sorry, Darin - you're on my turf now. You are completely and utterly misapplying the term "empirical."

Would anyone believe me if I told them I had an egg timer sitting here ticking in anticipation of just how long it would take Kirk to completely rip apart my suggestion??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Kirk,
There are degrees and levels of application to pretty much everything we might suggest here... You can take a definition to the ump-teenth degree and never get any satisfactory answer, or you can take the generally accepted terms and try to get something done. Neither is wrong. Both can yield acceptable results...

The question in this case is just HOW accurate does this really need to be??? In either your case or mine, emperical methods ARE being applied. You choose to apply every method that can possibly be conceived, and I choose to apply those that I feel will actually significantly affect the outcome.

If your method gets a car classed within say 50lbs of perfect, and mine gets them within 75 or even 100lbs of perfect... do you think there are THAT many drivers out there who will have the resources, skill, and environment ALL come together at the same point in time to really be able to prove the difference in 50lbs, one way or the other???

Anyhow,... I initally had "arbitrary" there instead... but the definition for that implies that NOTHING was considered, and I KNOW that isn't the case.

So, in summary... I did NOT completely misapply the term emperical... Factors are considered and past experience IS considered. Maybe not to the degree the satisfies every POSSIBLE aspect of the defintion, but emperical non-the-less...

Tag... You're it! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 02, 2003).]

itafiero
10-02-2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
Heck, I was just happy to see them post anything related to it. It appears they haven't forgotten about us asking the question...




Nice but I doubt it's absolutely true. Looking at the weights there is know way that they actually thoroughly investigate the appropriate weight. It might be partially true with popular classes but with unpopular classes it's pretty clear they did not do there homework. I race a '88 Fiero Formula. They dropped 100# from the SSS weight for the V6. The coupe (4 cylinder) was never classified in SSS so the used the weight from the earlier years running in ITB. What's interesting is that the chassis changed in '88 both the 4 and V6 have the same breaks and suspension. Yet there is a 220# difference between the 85-87 vs the '88 V6 and only a 10# difference between the 85-87 4 cylinder and 85-87 V6 cylinder. There are other examples but it's pretty clear there is a less than empirical process at work here.

I'm not saying the weight for the '88 V6 is wrong, I think it's about 80# high but that's not my point here. It's that there is a clear indication in the specifications in ITCS regarding weight that is indicative of a week process involved in determining weight.

Knestis
10-02-2003, 08:01 PM
Okey-dokey, Darin - I take that bet. Give me a clear example of how recent classification practices have satisfied TWO of the criteria that I suggested - you can pick which ones. Here they are again:

(a) apply recognized systemic methods - recognized by anyone beyond those making the decisions

(B) use reliable and valid methods to collect data - "reliable" speaks primarily to repeatability, "valid" speaks to the degree something measures what it purports to

© involve rigorous analysis of those data - attempting to demonstrate that alternate hypotheses are WRONG, not that the desired outcome is RIGHT

(d) describe methods clearly enough that they can be replicated by others - again, repeatability

(e) share findings in settings that encourage critical review - this is NOT accomplished by FasTrack notes like, "The weight has been reviewed and found to be correct as listed"

K

Bill Miller
10-02-2003, 09:47 PM
Kirk,

I'll go you one better than that, I'd like to see him come up w/ just one of those criteria that have been met!

Darin (and George and Andy),

Since the FasTrack bit on the E36 318is said that the AC researched the weight of this car and found it to be correct, can you guys please share how you arrived at that determination?

I must admit that I did chuckle when I read that mfg's published specifications were used. This was due to claims that mfg's have over/under stated specifications in the past. I also chuckled when I read that the "Club" does the assessment. Exactly what part of the "Club" were the referring to?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geezer
10-03-2003, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I also chuckled when I read that the "Club" does the assessment. Exactly what part of the "Club" were they referring to?


Perhaps the heavy end, normally used on those requesting reclassification?

Knestis
10-03-2003, 08:46 PM
I hope Darin is at a race. I'm kind of worried since he hasn't responded... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Banzai240
10-03-2003, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I hope Darin is at a race. I'm kind of worried since he hasn't responded... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Kirk... give it rest... I work in a classified area all day, with limited access to an "unclassified" PC and NO access to my notes/data... Did you think I was just going to just throw up a quick response to a question such as yours??? I have to have time to get all my lawyers involved!

I'll respond when I have my position as firmly backed as I can... Until then, RELAX, would ya?! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 04, 2003).]

Knestis
10-04-2003, 10:27 AM
Well, you always seem so speedy! Sorry... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

Geo
10-04-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Well, you always seem so speedy! Sorry... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

That's because he's using a cheater liquid cooled, overclocked CPU. But only a weenie would protest it. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

racer-025
10-04-2003, 11:25 PM
As a fellow Canadian racer, I noticed that SCCA has finally recognised our ASN/FIA competition license and they will now accept it at any SCCA event. Thats great news as now we will only have to purchase one license instead of two.

Bill Miller
10-05-2003, 03:36 PM
George and Darin,

No comments re: my question? I'm surprised at you guys. You talk about sharing information here, but when there's something in FasTrack that says you folks were involved in a decision, you all of a sudden have nothing to say.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
10-05-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
You talk about sharing information here, but when there's something in FasTrack that says you folks were involved in a decision, you all of a sudden have nothing to say.


Bill... You can get off it too... Apparently you didn't read my post about four up from here...

In the meantime, I've been gathering the information I need to make an attempt at satisfactorily answering you and Kirk's questions... It's not going to be easy, since my lawyers don't work weekends...

What are you in such a hurry for anyhow... You planning on building a 318 soon???

When I feel I have the information I need to post something on this matter, I'll post it...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

ITSRX7
10-05-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:


Darin (and George and Andy),

Since the FasTrack bit on the E36 318is said that the AC researched the weight of this car and found it to be correct, can you guys please share how you arrived at that determination?




Just to answer Bill's question (sorry, I have been out of town):

The ITAC did not research the weight and suggest it was correct as specified contrary to what the item says. We 'recommended' that the CB review their research and make sure the proper decision was made. Apperantly, they did and they heold firm.

Not sure why it said the AC did the research. They did the initial research and classification so it makes sense that they review the original docs and clarifiy their position.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Knestis
10-05-2003, 09:34 PM
Now THAT'S an interesting development.

I'm probably the only one paranoid enough to see any problem with the Comp Board using the official organ of the rules-making process to make the ITAC the bad cop, when its members had no part in the decision...

K

ITSRX7
10-05-2003, 10:48 PM
I don't think that is the case. We are woking out some 'phrasing' issues as we type. The CB did put the issue on our agenda, but it was one we pushed back to them.

The ITAC as a group needs to get stuff like this squared away. Count on open and honest dialogue from the members in this forum.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Bill Miller
10-06-2003, 06:54 AM
Andy,

Thanks for the info, I think it speaks volumes. And no Kirk, you're not the only one. The CB has used this tactic in the past. The one case that I know about is the Rabbit GTI, but I do recall seeing other citings in FasTrack where the CB has stated that the AC has essentially reviewed and approved the weight of a given car.

Andy (and any of the other ITAC members), if I were in your spot, I would be very troubled by what the CB has done. They're putting you guys in a pretty tight spot. Interesting how the weight on the E36 318is was deemed to be correct, yet the weight on the VR6 Corrado was deemed to be 170# too high, especially in light of the recent comments about how weights are initially determined.

The E36 325is guys squaked when 100# was added to the weight (because it was determined to be incorrect). If all of those factors went into the determination of the weight (and there is no published formula), how can anyone say that an adjustment is right or wrong? I suspect that not much of a stink was made over the Corrado adjustment becausee it was not a top car to start with, and nobody feels that a 170# weight break will make it a top car. In essence, it wasn't a player, and it probably won't be a threat in the future, even at a lower weight

Darin,

I don't know what information you need to get, either you were involved in researching the weight on the E36 318is or you were not, end of story. And, I don't see what difference it makes if I'm interested in building one of those cars or not. As Kirk said, it looks like the CB could be using the ITAC as the patsy in this case (and others). Rather than directly answering a fairly simple question, you take the politician's approach. I think those panties are still somewhat bunched! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
10-06-2003, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

I don't know what information you need to get, either you were involved in researching the weight on the E36 318is or you were not, end of story.... Rather than directly answering a fairly simple question, you take the politician's approach.

Bill... Should I even bother to do what I am trying to do, or do you just already know what that is and so why bother???

I have in my backpack right now (I'm getting ready to ride my bike the 13 miles to work right now, 4:40am, not in the mood for this BS...) about 20 pieces of paper that includes the three original Letters to the CB concerning the weight on the 318, the pages of the GCR that contain the IT and SSS classifications for that car, as well as the three seperate ITAC responses to the letters (consolidated inputs containing each persons comment on the matter)...

If you'd give me a second or two to actually go back over them an formulate a whole picture, I'd be happy to respond...

Sorry, but I do have a normal life outside of racing that involves a little attention as well...

To answer yes or no to the question you posted would not do it justice... There is more information available than that...

And stop talking about "panties"... your giving me the heeby-jeebies... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 06, 2003).]

Banzai240
10-06-2003, 11:03 AM
OK, I'm going to try to summarize the 318 weight decision from the ITAC's perspective with as few words as possible, lest I give Bill and Kirk any more ammunition than they inevitably will find anyhow...


IT letter 03-409, received sometime in the April-May timeframe, says the following (I'm quoting exactly, grammer and all):


I would like to submit, for consideration, the following items:

1. Correct weight on the BMW 318 (E36 chassis) in ITA. Manufactures listed curb weight is only 2818 lbs and GCR weight is more ( 2850) when most cars receive a 100 to 200 lbs reduction in class.

2...
3...


My response to this was the following:

"Revisit after PCA decision - It does look a little heavy in comparison to the rest of the class"

That was also the general consensus of the ITAC, so the weight was left as is for now...

In June, another letter was received from the same party, IT-03-479:


First... (question about getting cars classed in Production...) Second, I asked you to forward a few requests to the comp board for IT and you replied that a possible "comp adjustment" rules was being considered and nothing would be addressed until that was resolved. My problem is that if "comp adjustments" become reality I don't want my starting point to be too far off. I am building a E36 BMW 318 for ITA and requested the weight be corrected. (corrected, not adjusted) In looking at old SSB rules this car was listed at 2660 lbs and in ITA it is llisted at 2840lbs??? My ownders manual has 2880 listed with full fuel. This IT weight is only 10 lbs less than the 6 cylinder 325 in ITS... The 325 along with all other examples I have found received wieght drops from 100 to close to 300 lbs from their respective SS or OE weights. Why is this car different? I think it is a correction, not a comp adjustment??? Can you shed light on this?

Respectifully submitted,
XXXXX


My response to this was the following:

"These specs to me look a little like "fear of the 4-valve" that the SCCA tends to have when classifying cars... HOWEVER, if the car was classified using the same procedure as the other cars, then I'd have to opt to leave the classification as is until some proven statistics are available to otherwise show that it is uncompetitive. I otherwise don't have enough background with this particular car to make an honest assessment"

Some general comments from the ITAC were:

'Seems real high weight'
'May have made an error in the weight. We should research and review'
'Revisit after PCAs'
'Request VTS... weight does appear high...'

Etc, and so forth...

Generally, the ITAC requested more data, as that submitted was insufficient, and chose to leave weight as is or hold until further information was available...

Finally, in August, letter IT-03-617 stated the following:

Please review my request found in August Fastrack regarding the weight question for 1992-1995 BMW 318 E36 cars in ITA. I was not requesting a "weight adjustment" but a weight correction. According to SCCA's own spec for prior years in SSS the car weighted 2660 in 2001 or 2840 in 2003 with the new SSS 180lb driver weight add. In 2001, when last elibible for SS, the 325 E36 ran at 2910, if you add the 2003 driver weight of 180lb you would get 3090 if the 325 was still legal. The ITCS for the 325 in IT trim is only 2850 or some 240lbs lighter than it's SSS spec would be. Why then would the 318 would weigh exactly the same as it's SSS spec and it is only 10lbs lighter than the 6 cylinder 325... BMW's own specifications for the 2 cars shows some 221 lbs less curb weight between the 318 and 325 (example given based on 1993 specs for 325is@ 3087 and 318is @ 2866 per BMW NA). My understanding of a "weight adjustment" is an adjustment made to increase or decrease the competition potential and sense no body appears to be compaigning this car (318 E36) that is not the issue. I am requesting this isse be reviewed because the original spec line is incorrect. I plan on building this car to compette in ITA next year.

Respectfully Submitted,
XXXXX


To this letter, I responded:

"I need to look more into this. It appears that Mr. XXXX may have a point, but I need further information about the specs of these cars to make an informed decision"

The general ITAC comments were:

'Submit to CB for evaluation'
'SS weights and IT weights do not necessarily correspond'
'Hold for PCAs'
'Another case of "how was this car classed"'

That puts us where we are right now. The ITAC has never received a VTS as far as I know, without which I could only rely on what I found on the internet for information.

From my point of view, you can't make a valid argument about the classfication weight of your car based on the weight it had in SS, or the factory curb weight alone. You also can't expect to use another cars ITS weight to support an argument for a car in ITA, since it would be reasonable to say that if the same two cars were classed together in SSB at one time, the one car that went to ITA would likely have to be heavier to make it fit in the lower class when it's bretheren went to ITS. One needs to look at the whole picture.

The facts I do know are that BMWs have a very advanced and well tuned suspension. This particular car has HUGE vented disk brakes, especially in comparison to the rest of the ITA cars. I don't know what is available as factory options on these cars as far as cams, head assemblies, etc., but there are many models available that may have parts that can interchange, so the factory 138hp (a value that I found reading a test report of a '95 318i convertible, http://www.carmax.com/dyn/research/Reviews...review=19952186 (http://www.carmax.com/dyn/research/Reviews/carreview.asp?review=19952186) ) may not truely represent the potential of this car, and is certainly in line with stock hp of many other ITA cars.

So, bottom line is that I believe the car may truely be too heavy as classified, but don't have enough real evidence to make an adjustment. If I had the VTS, then I could use some of my simulation software to do an engine analysis to determine the potential HP available in IT trim, and that would help a great deal, because we all know that BMWs are capaple motors...

Finally, we on the ITAC are not involved in determining classification weights at this point. We can recommend that a weight be reviewed, but since we aren't part of the initial weight determining process, we don't have the insight to how the weights are determined in the first place, so how could we make decisions to adjust them? (You guys aren't the only ones bothered by this fact...)

I would like to see the CB establish a bare minimum classification weight formula that would be used along with other "emperical" evidence to determine these weights. I'd like to see the formula published. I believe that some of this process needs to be left up to the people on the board and that some leeway should exist for them to add to/subtract from the formula weights as they see fit. I believe...

I'm just one, however, and I have stated my desires... From there, it's not up to me.

You now know what I know, and you'll just have to be satisfied with that.

OH, and to answer Kirk's questions about "emperical" data... I have no idea. I only suggested adding that word because I thought it would be a good way to say that the system simply uses a best guess based on past experience. Take that as you will, I really don't care at this point... You guys have a way of making racing more of a hassle than it's worth, and at times I wonder why I even try...

As for the topic at hand... Your comments/suggestions are, of course, welcome...

Good Day...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.attbi.com/~djjordan/Web/240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 06, 2003).]

Karl Bocchieri
10-06-2003, 12:01 PM
Well if the 318 is the correct weight the 325 must be too light, and if the 325 is the right weight the 318 is too heavy.

I only had an 87 IT spec book around but I found something interesting.

The 1985 RX-7 can run in ITS with the 13b motor at 2530, The identical car with the 12a motor is in ITA at 2380, 150 lbs less.

Yet the 318 is only HOW many pounds less than the 325?

planet6racing
10-06-2003, 12:12 PM
In my opinion, no car should be classified without a VTS sheet on file. When I got my car classified, I submitted ~35 pages of data so that the Comp Board/ITAC had all the information they needed. These were taken straight from the factory service manual.

If the requestor is unable to provide this information, then the request should be set-aside until the information is available. If he/she is racing the car, he/she has the FSM (as called for by the GCR) and should be able to easily provide this information to you.

Some people won't like this. I run into it all the time at work. But, the procedures are there for a reason and people can't just pick and choose when they want to follow them.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

Knestis
10-06-2003, 02:51 PM
I really do appreciate the detailed info, Darin. Thanks for taking the time to pull that together - it makes for an interesting case study...

The problem appears to be systemic, which is no surprise. The ITAC's role is not clearly defined (yet), it is unclear what role (if any) the stock weight plays in determining IT-spec race weight, nobody is sure what to do while the PAC question remains unresolved, there is no clear procedural distinction between an "adjustment" and a "correction, it is unclear what data is truly required for classification and specification, and the entire process still leans heavily on perceptions of competitive potential.

Until such time as these are addressed, you ITAC guys are stuck in uneviable position of having to make recommendations - that may or may not be considered - with insufficient information. Were I on the ITAC, I'd be pretty worried about this no-win position: It IS a PITA chore and lots of folks are willing to whine about your work but the fact that you potentially accept a lot of blame without commensurate control would seem to be the bigger threat.

This mistatement of who actually had material input on the 318 decision may indeed be another case of reporting error but I'd watch to see if a pattern emerges.

Thanks again, Darin.

K

lateapex911
10-06-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
You guys have a way of making racing more of a hassle than it's worth, and at times I wonder why I even try...




Well, Darin, I read a post a few lines up that was demanding an answer from you, and it got me steamed, and I nearly jumped on it and posted, but caught myself. Decided to leave the wadded panties alone, so to speak.

I appreciate your response, it was worth the (short) wait, and I suspected it would be. A very intesting "look behind the curtain", and I thank you.

Your above quoted comment strikes a resonant chord with me, and I hope others reading this thread will take it seriously, and give respect where it is due. The ITAC guys have been kind enough to trust us enough to post here in a semi-official form, and we owe it to them to respect that. I know that the position comes with the reality that there will be critism, but I would prefer it was constructive. From what I can remember, this is a new level of communication, and it involves trust. If we abuse it, it will go away.

As a comment, I found the writers desire to distinguish (for his obvious personal agenda, naturally) between a correction and an adjustment to be interesting, because, really, ist't the whole weight setting procedure the first competition adjustment a car sees anyway??

In other words, on a macro scale, isn't the function of "classing" a new model basically choosing which of the four clesses it will fall closest to, then adjusting the weight to balance it's other natural parameters to provide the closest match to the "ideal" class car? I understand the distinction the guy was referring to, but in the end it's all a bit arbitrary.

Again, thanks for the insight, and I hope we as a group can show the decorum that is appropriate.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Quickshoe
10-06-2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Karl Bocchieri:
The 1985 RX-7 can run in ITS with the 13b motor at 2530, The identical car with the 12a motor is in ITA at 2380, 150 lbs less.


Just for clarification, they are not identical cars. The 1st gen (85) 13B has larger brakes, 14" wheels, FI, and a different trans.

I'm not meaning to discredit your argument about the 318/325. Just make certain you utilize accurate statements in your official argument. It can be mostly factual and someone might pick out one "fact" that is inaccurate and discredit the whole thing.

Bill Miller
10-06-2003, 07:47 PM
Darin,

Thanks for taking the time to put that together.


You also can't expect to use another cars ITS weight to support an argument for a car in ITA, since it would be reasonable to say that if the same two cars were classed together in SSB at one time, the one car that went to ITA would likely have to be heavier to make it fit in the lower class when it's bretheren went to ITS. One needs to look at the whole picture.


Jake,

You're right, it's for my obvious personal agenda of getting this whole mess clarrified. I don't even race IT anymore, and can't ever see myself going back. I have no dog in this hunt anymore. I just can't stand a process that claims to be one thing and is in fact something else. If there's no guarantee of competitivness, why do they even consider all those factors? Why isn't it a rough guideline (e.g. ITC = <=1.6 8v) and MVMA published curb weight.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

ITSRX7
10-06-2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
If there's no guarantee of competitivness, why do they even consider all those factors? Why isn't it a rough guideline (e.g. ITC = <=1.6 8v) and MVMA published curb weight.


Becasue they are TRYING to do the best job classing as they can. You have to have criteria, don't you? They problem most have here is that there are so many factors you can't plug into a formula, that it doesn't make sense to try.

If there was a 'rough' guideline, the people who didn't fit into that 'rough' scenario would be marching on HQ with pitchforks and torches...and there would be MANY who didn't fit into that guideline, or else it wouldn't be so 'rough'.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Geo
10-06-2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
In my opinion, no car should be classified without a VTS sheet on file. When I got my car classified, I submitted ~35 pages of data so that the Comp Board/ITAC had all the information they needed. These were taken straight from the factory service manual.

If the requestor is unable to provide this information, then the request should be set-aside until the information is available. If he/she is racing the car, he/she has the FSM (as called for by the GCR) and should be able to easily provide this information to you.

Kudos to Bill.

You know, a lot of people write to the CB and as for some change or adjustment. They talk a lot about what they "feel." Hey, we're not shrinks. If you want us to be your shrinks, send us all $100. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif What we need is data and very few people (besides Kirk of course http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ) actually bother to send any meaningful data.

This may piss some folks off, but I'm getting to the point if someone doesn't care enough to gather and organize some meaningful data, I have a hard time spending much time on their request. OTOH, there have been some letters with a very good amount of data (don't dog pile - send what you need and don't bury us) that have been the basis of much discussion and serious consideration.

It comes back down to "do your homework."


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

theenico
10-07-2003, 12:57 AM
It is my opinion that the ITAC is all to often used as a skapegoat by the Comp Board.
The CB seems to only care about national classes even though the IT/SM groups pay entry fees and sometimes turn out in larger numbers. This is unfortunate, but currently that is what we have to deal with.
It also disappoints me when IT guys/gals whine about their car being uncompetitive and then saying they won't write letters to the ITAC, CB and the BOD (you have to send to all these guys) because "it won't do any good". This is only partially true. The respective boards don't want to hear whining. They need facts, documentation and sources to be able to check it out.
That said I may as well give you guys my story since I'm new around here.
My name is Nico and I race an ITB Scirocco. I race it because it was in my driveway and I have a lot of parts for it. At first I thought it was unfair that I had to be 90# heavier than the Rabbit and only 10# lighter than the Golf. For a brief second I thought about composing an unfounded whiny letter before the car was even finished. I was still tempted to when it was completed because it was so light (2120# with driver) and other people "said" it was uncompetitive. Thanks to the gentleman I work for (Charlie Clark Area 6 Director) I went ahead and put the pasenger seat, spare tire, more tubes in the cage and some ballast back in the car to meet the required weight of 2270# with driver.
I may not be beating everyone but I'm not last either, In fact Chris Albin said he was fairly surprised at the cars ability, even with the stock motor of unknown mileage. Besides, racing is just too damn much fun to get all whiny, and I enjoy my little "uncompetitive" turd that I drive to the track. That's my story and thanks to everyone for the well thought posts on this thread, you have my respect.
Nico

Bill Miller
10-07-2003, 06:15 AM
Andy,

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I just can't, in good conscience, say that someone is 'trying to do the best job' when they will drop 1.6L 4-cyl cars into the same class w/ 2.5L 6-cyl cars (w/in the IT framework). I'm sorry, but I just can't imagine how any reasonable person could expect a Civic EX to be able to compete w/ an E36 325 (again, w/in the IT framework).

George,

Your arrogance is amazing. You're using your own yardstick to determine which proposals get 'more' of your time and you expect people to be able to read your mind and know how much and which information is 'just right'. Get over yourself!

You see George, it's a classic Catch-22. We aren't told what factors go into classification/specification (yeah, I know somebody gave a list in FasTrack, but that was about as open-ended as you can get). So, how do we know what data to send? We're told that mfg's weight and SS weight don't necessarily have any bearing on IT weight.

Maybe it's time for me to send my request for the correction of the weight on the ITB Rabbit GTI in again, along w/ the 6" thick stack of supporting documentation. But hey, I shouldn't have to send the docs again, Topeka already has them (or do they not keep that stuff on file???).

Isn't it part of the ITAC's mission to do some of the research on a car? But, maybe it's not as I haven't seen any kind of published mission statement for the ITAC.

I'll ask the question again. If the E36 318is weight was determined to be correct, what were the criteria that were used to make that assessment? If the ITAC didn't make that reccomendation, would someone from the ITAC be kind enough to get that information from the CB (since they're putting it on the ITAC).



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
10-07-2003, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

Your arrogance is amazing. You're using your own yardstick to determine which proposals get 'more' of your time and you expect people to be able to read your mind and know how much and which information is 'just right'. Get over yourself!


You've got to be kidding Bill. I think it may be time to take a break from this place again. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

Arrogance? No. How about not having enough information to make an informed recommendation? How about the fact that I just gave good advice on writing a good and compelling letter to the CB? But no, we're all just sitting around on the thrones of our kingdoms. Yeah right. Your attitude is in the toilet. But, that's OK, that's your right.


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Isn't it part of the ITAC's mission to do some of the research on a car?

Not really. We are supposed to make recommendations to the CB regarding requests. If we have access to information we need to help make an informed recommendation, we'll drag it out. We'll ask each other about specs of various cars and if anyone has the information. We've send letters back to the CB saying we need more information.

Perhaps there is and issue regarding people's perception of exactly what we do and what should be included with a letter. Of course, that's what I tried to help clear up and just got labeled arrogant.

As for spending time researching stuff for letters... Forget it. If I don't have it I'll ask around the ITAC if someone else has the info. If I have a friend who has strong knowledge of a car, I'll ask him/her about something. But research beyond that? You've got to be kidding. We've all got full-time jobs and plenty of other life responsibilities as well. I think it's arrogant to expect a team of volunteers to do people's homework for them if they can't bother enough to do it themselves. Letters should be sent with enough information so the CB/ITAC can make an informed decision. Don't forget, when you send a letter to the CB, you're trying to convince them of your position. Lack of information usually results in a really weak argument.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

oanglade
10-07-2003, 08:05 AM
So, in this case of the 318i, did anyone contact the person who wrote the letter and asked for more information/specs on the car to help make a decision?

Is there an "archive" with all the classed car's VTS? Maybe an online archive password protected so that the CB, ITAC, etc. can access it and have all the data that is on file for the model available would help. This should include notes on what was used to class the car and how the weight was established.

I'm just trying to learn more about this process.

Thanks for giving some insight into how it works.

ITSRX7
10-07-2003, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I just can't, in good conscience, say that someone is 'trying to do the best job' when they will drop 1.6L 4-cyl cars into the same class w/ 2.5L 6-cyl cars (w/in the IT framework). I'm sorry, but I just can't imagine how any reasonable person could expect a Civic EX to be able to compete w/ an E36 325 (again, w/in the IT framework).


Bill,

We have disagreed in the past on most things but I buy what you are selling here. When you take a step back and look at the cars in ITS and ITA, it is hard to really get your arms around from a logic standpoint.

Having said that, the CB has been saddled with only 4 classes (really only 2 becasue nothing new goes into B and C) and no way to adjust the competivness of cars. It makes it awefully hard to make everything 'work'. HOPEFULLY, we have a new era dawning with the proposed advent of limited PCA's. This should give the CB a foundation to move in the right direction. Maybe a real IT class in between S and A after PCA's prove to weed out the real trouble out there now.

Let's hope.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

Geo
10-07-2003, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by oanglade:
Is there an "archive" with all the classed car's VTS? Maybe an online archive password protected so that the CB, ITAC, etc. can access it and have all the data that is on file for the model available would help. This should include notes on what was used to class the car and how the weight was established.

There probably is a files someplace in Topeka with that information. There is nothing on-line, thus nothing available to the CB and ITAC unless supplied by the letter writer.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Bill Miller
10-07-2003, 07:43 PM
Andy,

See, I'm not such a bad guy after all! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

George,

You obviously knew you were being arrogant as you prefaced your comment w/ the comment about the probability of pissing some people off. Sorry, but if you're going to say that proposals won't get your best effort if they don't meet your standards, that's arrogant, and maybe you should re-think your position on the ITAC.

BTW, I love it when people volunteer for something, and thing cry about how much they have to do besides that. And as far as the ITAC doing research, I can't even begin to tell you how many citings I've seen in FasTrack where the CB has referred things to the various AC's for research and review. It was my understanding that that's what one of the main functions of the AC's was. Since they were supposed to more subject matter experts on their particular category, and that the CB relied on them for information, not the other way around.

So, if you're happy w/ the way the CB is handling things, and having them make comments in FasTrack that the ITAC is doing research on and making determinations about cars, get ready for people to take you to task on it.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
10-07-2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

You obviously knew you were being arrogant as you prefaced your comment w/ the comment about the probability of pissing some people off.


Nah. Some people just bitch and moan constantly like you do.


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Sorry, but if you're going to say that proposals won't get your best effort if they don't meet your standards, that's arrogant, and maybe you should re-think your position on the ITAC.

Stop putting words in my mouth Bill. You're splendid at doing that. If a letter lacks data and just talks about "feelings," yeah, you're right. It doesn't get much consideration. Why should it? I doubt anyone else spends much time on such letters either, but I'll speak only for myself. I'll resist putting words in other people's mouth's like you love to do.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
10-07-2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And as far as the ITAC doing research, I can't even begin to tell you how many citings I've seen in FasTrack where the CB has referred things to the various AC's for research and review. It was my understanding that that's what one of the main functions of the AC's was. Since they were supposed to more subject matter experts on their particular category, and that the CB relied on them for information, not the other way around.

We review data and make recommendations. We do some limited research when we are missing bits of information that will help resolve an issue (if we can). We don't do someone else's research because they "feel" something. That's the way it is. There isn't time for much else. I'm just trying to help people understand the process and help them make a better case. Shame on me for sharing.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Knestis
10-07-2003, 09:02 PM
It IS helpful to get some clarification on precisely what the ITAC does. It SOUNDS from FasTrack like you guys actually make decisions and stuff, with so many items "referred to the IT ad hoc committee" rather than being acted on by the comp board.

I'm sensing that the reality is a little more nuanced than that...

K

Bill Miller
10-07-2003, 09:06 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">This may piss some folks off, but I'm getting to the point if someone doesn't care enough to gather and organize some meaningful data, I have a hard time spending much time on their request.</font>

George,

I'm not putting words in your mouth, that's what you said.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Geo
10-07-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm not putting words in your mouth, that's what you said.

Gee Bill, isn't it convenient how you ignored what I quoted from you that you basically attributed to what I was trying to say.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

planet6racing
10-07-2003, 09:41 PM
You know, I'm with George on this one. If a person can't take the time to copy the information from the books that they should already own to allow the ITAC/CB to make an informed decision, why should the ITAC spend any time on it?

Perhaps maybe it is just me, but that's the way things are at my work. I'm a test engineer. If the customer doesn't want to spend the time/money to do the proper tests to answer their questions, I won't be able to answer the question. It's simply a matter of data. Without it, it is not possible to make an informed decision (as opposed to the uninformed decisions many accuse the Comp Board of making every day).

How to avoid this? Simple. Comp Board, in the next FasTrack, spells out the procedure in detail for a) car classification and B) competition adjustments. You don't follow the procedure, you are asked once by the Comp Board to correct it. After that, if it still is not in compliance, your request is denied. Period. End of story.

I'm sure people will complain about that (I have yet to meet a person involved in racing for more than 2+ years that doesn't think he/she has something to complain about!) but, if it is clearly spelled out, tough cookies!

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

Bill Miller
10-08-2003, 05:17 AM
Bill,

That's the point, if there's a prescribed, minimum amount of data that are required for a car classification, that's fine. But to have George use his own personal yardstick, w/o anyone else knowing what his criteria/standars are, is BS.

The more data and background research someone provides, the more it helps their case (or at least that's the way it should be). That's not just w/ racing, but pretty much everything in life. I'm a analytical person by nature and by training, I firmly believe in using supporting data to defend/support a position.

Now George, here's a scenario for you. You state that it is up to the requestor to 'do their homework' and supply you w/ the data. Do you take all of that data at face value? Do you do any work to verify its accuracy and correctness? I spoke to a friend of mine last night that sits on the Prod AC, and asked him if part of their job was to do research on new car classification requests. You want to know what his answer was??? Maybe you can guess.

The other side of Bill's comment was to notify the requestor if required information is missing and let them attempt to provide it. I'm sure not everyone that requests something of the CB is as in tune w/ the whole process as a lot of the people here. You could have, for example, Joe Newbie sending in a request to have his SUX 9000* classified in IT. Since there's no published guideline as to what data he should send along w/ that request, he doesn't send anything else. At the very least, George has said it won't get much of his time.


*Note: Who will be the first one to know what that is from?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

dickita15
10-08-2003, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Bill,
Joe Newbie sending in a request to have his SUX 9000* classified in IT.
*Note: Who will be the first one to know what that is from?


Robocop?

I do think it is resonable for the itac to expect data to support requests. yes it would be best if a template was published for what data is expected, but i give geo credit for publicly saying this is an issue. he should not be dissed for this step toward tranparency. if we keeping shooting the messenger we will be kept in the dark forever
dick patullo

planet6racing
10-09-2003, 01:15 PM
But, IIRC, there was a form that I filled out that asked all the pertinent information and, I believe, asked for the accompanying pages from the factory service manual.

Geo, my recommendation: go to the comp board and get a process clearly defined. Sure, it would probably cut down on 1/2 the traffic here, but I'm sure we'll all find something else to go on about (hmm, maybe racing?).


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

P Sherm
10-09-2003, 01:17 PM
Does anyone know, and can anyone tell me WHAT data the ITAC would like to have? I have never seen an article about the data they need to make recommendations. As a Neon owner that is looking at the inevitable move from SSC to IT, I would like to present evidence to try and get my car moved from ITS to ITA, but don't know what I should submit. Maybe it would be helpful to the membership at large if the was a way the ITAC could publish the requirements (or general guidelines) for requesting reclassifications. Maybe this will be helpful also if the proposed competition adjustments (or whatever they're being called) change passes.

???


------------------
#59 SSC Neon
Yes, I know it's not an IT car... yet... :)

Bill Miller
10-09-2003, 06:25 PM
Robocop?



:thumbup http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Prince Makaha
10-19-2003, 08:43 AM
Appropriate name for a taurus with extra bodywork.