PDA

View Full Version : PCA Responses... or LACK THEREOF!!!



Banzai240
10-09-2003, 10:21 PM
OK Guys and Gals... ONLY 16 letters so far??? If you guys want to get things done, you're going to have to do better than that! AND, I don't recognize MOST of the names on these, meaning that they aren't from YOU!!

Get off your BUTTS and start writing! I don't care which way you are leaning, TELL US! If you have an alternative... TELL US! If you'd rather see another class added and some reclassifications or general redistribution of the IT cars... TELL US! If you want the class left completely alone... TELL US...

It doesn't take a huge letter... A simple paragraph or two is fine, and I (we) can read around poor grammer, bad spelling, or lousy sentance structure, so there is no excuse for the lack of input received so far... This has been out there over a month... GET TYPING!!

Your Friendly neighborhood ITAC member...


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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 13, 2003).]

ITSRX7
10-09-2003, 10:39 PM
...and remember, when something is published for member comment, assume the CB is looking to implement. So no response is at worst considered a nuetral response, no?

AB

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

122 Vega
10-10-2003, 12:16 AM
Letter to whom? About what? Do I have to be a current member? What's the PCA? Porsche Club of America?

Britt

Soon to be SSC Mazda MP3

------------------
The Cosworth Vega - One Vega for the price of two

[This message has been edited by 122 Vega (edited October 10, 2003).]

ddewhurst
10-10-2003, 07:52 AM
PCA ????? Potental competition adjustment????
Political competition adjustment ?????????

It's all about communication.

What is PCA ???????????????????????????????

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif
David

ITSRX7
10-10-2003, 08:45 AM
Does ANYBODY read FasTrack? Communication? It's been in black and white for months.

"Performance Compensation Adjustment"

September FasTrack p. F226

AB http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited October 10, 2003).]

Jake
10-10-2003, 10:17 AM
Is an email to the CB as good as a letter?

Banzai240
10-10-2003, 10:19 AM
OK... ONCE AGAIN... for those of you who are suffering from A.D.D. :


From the September Fastrack: Improved Touring

The Competition Board working in conjunction with the IT Advisory Committee has reviewed the numerous membership input items regarding the concept of allowing competition adjustments in IT.

The input so far received from the membership is almost evenly divided on whether there should be some form of competition adjustments for IT. There have been thoughtful presentations on both sides of the discussion. The IT Advisory Committee has developed a "middle of the road" concept that the Competition Board would like member input on. If this concept is well received by the IT competitors, the Competition Board would recommend an effective date of 1/1/05.

The final paragraph of the 2003 ITCS's section 17.1.4.C now reads:
The SCCA shall specify the minimum weight for each classified car as qualified or raced, with driver.

The proposal would append the following paragraphs to the end of section 17.1.4.C:
During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess 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 shall be estab-lished. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle's racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or down-ward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a "performance compensation adjustment" shall be made. Any performance compensation adjust-ments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle's fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle's minimum weight shall be
established.

On rare occasion-and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle-the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle's minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle's class.

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 13, 2003).]

Knestis
10-10-2003, 10:25 AM
I (foolishly?) assumed that specific feedback already submitted would still be considered. I tried to be as specific as possible rather than just saying "aye" or "nay" to "competition adjustments" for this very reason.

Is this a case where we are now being asked to voice either support or condemnation of the precise wording of the FasTrack item? Or is a more nuanced response useful?

I want to do whatever will actually have the most influence on the outcome.

Kirk

Banzai240
10-10-2003, 10:45 AM
The "specific feedback" already received is on the blanket idea of "competition adjustments" in IT... As stated, that's about 50/50... Now, you are being asked to consider a specific idea, or "concept" if you will...


Originally posted by Knestis:
I want to do whatever will actually have the most influence on the outcome.

Kirk


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...concept that the Competition Board would like member input on.</font>

Write your "input" on the "concept" as proposed...

Personally, I would like to see any suggested improvements you (all of you) may have as well...

Even if it's a simple "yay" or "nay"... WRITE!

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



[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 13, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-10-2003, 06:33 PM
Darin,

After reading that again, I couldn't help but laugh at how the people that wrote it couldn't bring themselves to say the word 'competition'. And it's a good think that the A3 Golf got moved to ITB before this thing is implemented (if it ever is), because it would mean that someone would have actually had to race one of these cars before it would have gotten moved from ITA to ITB.

I hashed over what I thought about this proposal when it was first discussed here, I'm not about to do it again.

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

Knestis
10-10-2003, 07:50 PM
Can you take my previous letter and just move it to the new pile? I haven't changed my opinions and still have the same concerns. Reframing the conversation from "competition adjustment" to "PCA" doesn't change anything.

I'm not being facetious.

K

ddewhurst
10-10-2003, 08:32 PM
As this PCA is written, what impact will it have on an existing classed IT class overdog?

David Dewhurst
SCCA member # 250772

ps: When I read this PCA in FASTRACK I understood the PCA to impact only new classed cars after the PCA is in place.

[This message has been edited by ddewhurst (edited October 10, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-10-2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
As this PCA written, what impact will it have on an existing classed IT class overdog?

David Dewhurst
SCCA member # 250772


David, the way I read it, nothing for at least 2 years.


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

Geo
10-10-2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I want to do whatever will actually have the most influence on the outcome.

Kidnapping and ebola threats are definitely not cool. 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

Jake
10-10-2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I haven't changed my opinions and ...

Wow - there's a surprise! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

Banzai240
10-10-2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

After reading that again, I couldn't help but laugh at how the people that wrote it couldn't bring themselves to say the word 'competition'.

The "people" that wrote this knew exactly what they were calling it...

We've explained all this before, and I'm not going to go over it again for you...

To try to answer David's question, and to correct Bill's mis-information... Any car that proves, is shown, or is otherwise considered to be an "overdog" in the class, whether newly classified or not, is a candidate to have it's classification adjusted, or "compensated" for... I believe you'll find that in the "on rare occasion" part of the text...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 13, 2003).]

ddewhurst
10-11-2003, 04:52 AM
Darin, thanks for the info. Now lets add some balls to the newly proposed written rule.

If the first paragraph is aimed at only newly classed cars state that in the first paragraph.

If the second paragraph is for existing classed cars & or newly classed cars state that in the second paragraph.

Now that the paper work is complete I shall get in the truck & enjoy the weekend at Blackhawk Farm Raceway. The race car is loaded.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Bill Miller
10-11-2003, 06:31 AM
Darin,

Exactly what mis-information am I giving? Who's trying to pick a fight w/ whom? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

Banzai240
10-11-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Is an email to the CB as good as a letter?

YES!!! 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

Banzai240
10-11-2003, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

David, the way I read it, nothing for at least 2 years.

Bill.... THIS misinformation...

Not trying to pick a fight... just trying to keep the facts straight...



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

Jake
10-11-2003, 04:01 PM
If you don't want ITS to become SPEC BMW.
If you don't want ITA to become SPEC Honda.
If you want to see a VARIETY of cars in IT.

PLEASE tell the comp board that you support their best collective effort for Competitive Adjustments in IT. If we don't bite now, we may never get another chance.

Contacting the Comp Board is fun! It's easy! It's only one click away:

[email protected]

Bill Miller
10-12-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Bill.... THIS misinformation...

Not trying to pick a fight... just trying to keep the facts straight...




Ok Darin, maybe you want to tell me how that's "mis-information".


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

lateapex911
10-12-2003, 03:37 PM
Bill, you said, in answering a question about the affect of the rule on existing IT class overdogs, you said "nothing for at least for two years...".

But the rule clearly states, in the second paragraph, that they can make changes to existing cars ("rare occasions") immediately. So, as the proposed rule would go into eeffect on 1/2005, "at least two years" is the misinformation the has been referred to. I think you will see changes in under 15 months, at least the possibility of that exists.

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

Bill Miller
10-12-2003, 11:21 PM
Ok Jake, please show me where it says they will consider data prior to the rule implementation. Do you honestly think they'll implement this on 1/1/05 and wack cars like the E36 325 w/ weight at the same time? I don't (although, here's a case where I hope I'm wrong). Based on the way things have been done in the past, I would say it's more likely that they'd look at data for the '05 season, at the end of the season, for existing cars, before taking any kind of action with them.

Also, I stated that that's the way I read it. That was giving my opinion on it, not stating that, for a fact, nothing would be done for at least 2 years. Just like your opinion on seeing changes in < 15 months. Do you have a crystal ball?

Darin has gotten into the habit of using the wrong choice of words (see his comments about emperical data). He doesn't like my opinion, so he brands it as 'mis-information'.

In my opinion, this whole PCA thing is a load of crap. The drafters spent all kinds of time crafting rhetoric to avoid saying 'Competition Adjustments'. Also, notice that it's "the Club" that decides if there are inequties. They don't talk about any mechanism for dealing w/ member requests for change. And, if they're going to all this trouble, why is the 'no guarantee' language /edit/ not being addressed? It's my belief so that they can maintain an 'out' so as not to have to deal w/ member requests for adjustments.

Given a choice between the way things are today and this new PCA rubbish, I'll stick w/ what we have today. At least it's somewhat of a known quantity.


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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 13, 2003).]

lateapex911
10-13-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Ok Jake, please show me where it says they will consider data prior to the rule implementation. Do you honestly think they'll implement this on 1/1/05 and wack cars like the E36 325 w/ weight at the same time?

Where does it say they won't?? The fact is that the rule states that the window will open (if the whole deal goes down as written) 1.1.05


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Also, I stated that that's the way I read it. That was giving my opinion on it,.... Do you have a crystal ball? </font>

No that's why I used the word "think". Not to split hairs....


Given a choice between the way things are today and this new PCA rubbish, I'll stick w/ what we have today. At least it's somewhat of a known quantity.




That's interesting, because on the surface, you have left IT for the political mess that everyone wants to avoid: Prod style comp adjustments. Clearly, you see a distinction........

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 13, 2003).]

Banzai240
10-13-2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Also, I stated that that's the way I read it. That was giving my opinion on it, not stating that, for a fact, nothing would be done for at least 2 years.

Bill,
Everyone is WELL aware that this is "just your opinion"... regardless... you opinion stated mis-information that needed correcting...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Darin has gotten into the habit of using the wrong choice of words (see his comments about emperical data). He doesn't like my opinion, so he brands it as 'mis-information'.</font>

Again... YOUR opinion is that this is a "wrong choice of words"... I still think it is a fine choice of words, if not taken to the n-th degree of every possible definition of the word "emperical", and is applied AS I QUOTED dictionary.com...

Oh, and as for the rest of your post... Your opinion doesn't mean a hill-of-beans on this issue unless you actually take the time to write the appropriate parties and give it, so why don't you quit trying to harrass me and start aiming some constructive feedback to the compboard? Think of it as a round-about way of still harrassing me, just through an alternate channel...


------------------
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 13, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-13-2003, 02:58 AM
Ok Darin, how is my opinion that there won't be anything done for at least two years mis-information and Jakes opinion that you'll see changes in < 15 months not? Both are opinions.

I will say one thing though, you're one hell of an authority for someone that's been on the ITAC for only a few months. And who are you to determine if and when my opinion is worth something? And as far as your opinion about your choice of words, that's all well and good, but you still have not been able to show how it meets even one of the criteria that Kirk cited. Your arrogance is only exceeded by your lack of objectivity.

Jake,

You're correct, you did indicate that it was your opinion. I was wrong to say that you were stating it as fact.

And yes, I do see a distinction between Prod style comp. adjustments (not what I would like to see for IT, either) and this PCA BS. Why the need for all the fancy rhetoric and euphamism if not to create loopholes and a degree of vagueness so that no one can get pinned down?

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

ddewhurst
10-13-2003, 07:43 AM
****Darin, thanks for the info. Now lets add some balls to the newly proposed written rule.
If the first paragraph is aimed at only newly classed cars state that in the first paragraph.

If the second paragraph is for existing classed cars & or newly classed cars state that in the second paragraph.***

Darin & or Andy, is this to much to ask for. Ya know a written rule that we ALL will understand.

Racing is great, to bad the rules are always a GAME. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif From the few people who have posted on this PCA issue rule it is clear that the rule is not understandable. & you people on the ITAC are given the opportunity to infuse some change. If you people will not respond & communicate about this PCA rule why should we think that letters to the Comp Board will receive any attention. Opps if you do that you will never be considered for the Comp Board.

It's a sad rule http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif
David




[This message has been edited by ddewhurst (edited October 13, 2003).]

Banzai240
10-13-2003, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I will say one thing though, you're one hell of an authority for someone that's been on the ITAC for only a few months.
NOW we're getting to the root of the matter, eh Bill... Is there an "herb" behind some of this contempt Bill?? Sure sounds familiar... I suppose next you'll say something rediculous like "he's only out for his own interests and is working solely for himself..." Is that what you think?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And who are you to determine if and when my opinion is worth something? </font>

OK, you are right... let me clarify for you (I'm sure everyone else actually got what I was saying...)

<SUGAR-COATING MODE>
Your "opinion" needs to be directed at the proper people in the proper manner if you want it to be officially considered... </SUGAR-COATING MODE>

There... even you can understand that...

As for Kirk's question... He listed four things that were above and beyond the depth of definition that I had considered when using the word... I conceeded that to him and have let it go... If you'd like to continue to argue it with him... feel free, because I believe he and I are settled on the matter...

Finally, my time on the ITAC has been over 10 months now... How long should I sit and observe before I start working on the issues that people expect me to work on??? Further, what does my time on the ITAC have to do with my knowledge of racing? I've been doing this since I was 18, which is going on about 18 years now... How much longer do I have to go before I'm "good enough" for the position???


------------------
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 13, 2003).]

Banzai240
10-13-2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
you people on the ITAC are given the opportunity to infuse some change. If you people will not respond & communicate about this PCA rule

Thus far, I believe we've been "responding and communicating" a LOT, so I'm not sure what more you want from us...

I feel that the official position I must take on the PCA proposal is to attempt to clarify as best I can the intent and wording as it has been presented. I've done that to the best of my ability, and shall continue to do so. It's going to be up to the membership to decide ultimately whether or not PCAs are a workable solution, which is why I have left my personal opinion out of the conversation. (Yes, despite popular believe, it's VERY easy for me to remain objective on these matters, and separate my "desires" from my official responsibilities...)

It's up to you all to read what has been presented and decide on a course of action. If you have questions, by all means, ask them and we will try to answer, based on our involvement in the creation. We are not lawyers, however, and not nearly as good at twisting and manipulating wording as most of you, so keep that in mind... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 13, 2003).]

ITSRX7
10-13-2003, 08:33 AM
I am havng a tough time handling this board. If anyone has any specific questions they wouldlike answered about intent or whatnot, please feel free to e:mail me off-line. It's just plain impossible to get the right message across when 1000 people are 'reading' it a diferent way.

[email protected]
or
[email protected]

I am just trying to stay away from the pissing contests that seem to happen every week. We are really trying to do what is best for the IT community.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited October 13, 2003).]

Quickshoe
10-13-2003, 03:11 PM
Thanks for your efforts Andy, while we haven't always seen eye to eye. At least we behaved somewhat appropriate.

The personal attacks have really got tiresome. I've started to scan over certain members' posts. And being guilty of toting a little gas to the fire from time to time, it takes a lot for me to grow tired of the drama.

--Daryl DeArman

Joe Craven
10-13-2003, 06:32 PM
OK guys, I sent in my opinion.

Thanks and I do appreciate the SCCA looking into this quagmire.

#37 ITB - having lots of fun whether I win or lose.

ddewhurst
10-13-2003, 09:14 PM
What the hell is wrong with some OPEN communication within the Secret Car Club of America. If one of you ITCA members would attempt to answer my question you may answer other peoples question at the same time.

Question A. ***If the first paragraph is aimed at only newly classed cars state that in the first paragraph.***

Question B. ***If the second paragraph is for existing classed cars & or newly classed cars state that in the second paragraph.***

If my suggestion makes no sence please tell me why I am wrong. Or what the harm is in adding a couple words to add clarity to the rule.

If you ITAC guys have been told to keep your mouths shut on the boards then you ought to not type about ITAC issues.

David Dewhurst
SCCA member # 250772

Geo
10-13-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
What the hell is wrong with some OPEN communication within the Secret Car Club of America.

What the hell do you think you've been getting?


Originally posted by ddewhurst:
If one of you ITCA members would attempt to answer my question you may answer other peoples question at the same time.


Well David, what is your question? I only see a suggestion.


Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Question A. ***If the first paragraph is aimed at only newly classed cars state that in the first paragraph.***


This is not a question.


Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Question B. ***If the second paragraph is for existing classed cars & or newly classed cars state that in the second paragraph.***


Neither is this.


Originally posted by ddewhurst:
If my suggestion makes no sence please tell me why I am wrong. Or what the harm is in adding a couple words to add clarity to the rule.

Hey, write to the CB. We've put a proposal in front of the CB. They put it in front of the members (that's you) for comment. So write them.


Originally posted by ddewhurst:
If you ITAC guys have been told to keep your mouths shut on the boards then you ought to not type about ITAC issues.

Where the hell did you get this?

I think Andy, Darin, and I have been pretty damned open here - probably too open. But we get blasted anyway. And people still don't write the CB. <shrug>


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

Banzai240
10-14-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
But we get blasted anyway.

I can deal with getting "blasted"... What really bothers me is that when the discussion comes to that, it runs people off and has them avoiding getting involved.

To any part of that that I've been a party, I appologize and will try to avoid that in the future.

It's pointless for us to comment on every single suggestion here, because all it does is start these pissing matches, and I, as others here have stated, don't think that's useful. If you want to write your thoughts down and send them in, then the ITAC can pool them together and see what patterns emerge. We can break them down and try to decipher what it is the majority of the membership wants.

Because we don't outright comment, does not mean that they aren't respectable ideas, or legitimate questions... Sometimes, there just isn't an answer at the time, or it wasn't a question in the first place, or we are busy at work and didn't see the post in the first place... Should we really be expected to respond to every suggestion given here? Actually, now that I think about it... we tend to! The correct response would have to be "that's an interesting idea/thought/whatever... you should write that to the Compboard for consideration..."...

Sure, that's the "company" answer, but it's also the one that gets things on the agendas of the CB and ITAC...

Finally, many times, I feel it's better to NOT respond, and to let you guys/gals take these topics where you feel they should go... We are watching, usually, and it's better to see where you all decide to take a topic without anyone thinking that an "official interpretation" has been given... Not trying to be "arrogant", but that's just what tends to happen, regardless of the true intent...


OK, O'll make an attempt to, as simply as possible, answer David's questions/comments:

The first paragraph clearly states: "During the initial vehicle classification process..." That seems pretty clear to me, and I would interpret that on an initial reading as meaning that this applies to an initial classfication... I'm not sure how it could be made any clearer than that...

The second paragraph states: "On rare occasion-and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle-the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle's minimum allowable weight..." etc. etc...

This, again, seems pretty clear that it is referring to "a particular make/model/year of a vehicle"... which says that any vehicle is fair game... "a" doesn't usually mean "the one previously discussed", or the "one we were just talking about"... It simply means "a" vehicle... Does that not refer to "ANY" vehicle in the field??? In what way could that be clearer???

If there is a specific suggestion as to the wording that would make this clearer, you know the avenue that you must take to get it heard by all parties. That's the best I can answer the question, because to me it's very clear what it says. By all means, however, do what you need to do to make sure YOU feel clear about what it says as well...

Hope this helped some...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 14, 2003).]

Geo
10-14-2003, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Actually, now that I think about it... we tend to! The correct response would have to be "that's an interesting idea/thought/whatever... you should write that to the Compboard for consideration..."...

Sure, that's the "company" answer, but it's also the one that gets things on the agendas of the CB and ITAC...

Agreed.


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

ddewhurst
10-14-2003, 07:19 AM
***OK Guys and Gals... ONLY 16 letters so far???***

This says a lot about your new proposed PCA.

Knestis
10-14-2003, 08:12 AM
This will go out this evening, after I have had one more chance to proof it...

Pursuant to the recent request for member input regarding the implementation of Performance Compensation Adjustments (PCAs) in the Improved Touring category, I respectfully submit the following points for your consideration:

1. Clause 17.1.4.B is not consistent with the policy operationalized by the PCA proposal and, before the proposed changes are considered, should be revised such that stated intent and policy align. While it is inappropriate to guarantee that every car will be a potential winner, it should be clearly stated that it is a goal to achieve equity within each IT class, if that is indeed the case. If this is not a desired outcome of the proposed rule change, it must be clearly spelled out what the goals are.

2. Within this clause, it must be clearly stated that no change to the ITCS should be construed as intending to provide equal opportunity for every entrant to be competitive. The fundamental purpose of racing is to sort the clever, talented racers from the rest of us—irrespective of the type of car that we drive. The distinction between “guarantee of competitiveness” and “effort to achieve equity” is critical.

3. The regional status and popularity of the IT category result in wide disparities in on-track performance within and among makes/models of cars—influenced not only by the inherent characteristics of any given make/model of listed car but also by (a) financial wherewithal, (B) time commitment, © construction skill, (d) engineering understanding, (e) driving talent, (f) differences in race courses, (g) legality, (h) disqualifications and DNFs, and even (i) vagaries of the weather. A strong argument can be made that the fundamental design of a particular stock car accounts for a very small portion of the variance among elapsed race or lap times in any IT class at any given event, relative to all of these other influences. Further, no statistical examination of results data has been undertaken that suggests that it IS the case that make/model of car is the most powerful predictor of race-condition competitiveness.

4. For this reason—and while I understand that it runs counter to common practice in Club Racing and the unstated assumptions behind the PCA proposal—I therefore urge that relative finishing places and/or lap times NOT be a primary data source when considering any adjustments to “compensate” for the “performance” of IT cars.

5. The practice of traditional, results-based “competition adjustments” potentially results in a number of consequences detrimental to the broad interests of the Club Racing program—even as they further those of individual racers—including (a) perceptions of decision-maker bias; (B) inappropriate efforts to lobby decisions; © de facto punishment of entrants of well-prepared, well-driven cars; (d) unfortunate burdens placed on less well funded, less skilled drivers of those same models of car; and (e) the need for any new car to go through the entire application, classification process before its potential longer-term usefulness can be assessed by interested entrants.

6. The single greatest shortcoming of the PCA proposal is that it does not specify what “triggers” will or will not be allowed to catalyze the process described in the last paragraph of the proposed 17.1.4.C. This leaves “Performance Compensation Adjustments” operationally identical to “Competition Adjustments,” at least in terms of the potential downside consequences that might result from their application (as described in 5. above). In fact, it aggravates the situation by imposing a multi-year probationary period on newly classified cars, making “recall” efforts enormously attractive to entrants interested in furthering their own competitive interests during this period.

7. It should be accepted that no system is going to be perfect, so a lack of perfection should not be invoked as an indictment of any proposed classification/specification system.

8. Further, it is specious to invoke the implicit threat that, “If we don’t change the IT classification process now, it will never be considered again.” If this is TRULY the situation, I would respectfully suggest that the problems in Club rules-making processes run much deeper than the challenges presented in specifying minimum weights in IT.

8. Perhaps most critically, predictability and repeatability are desirable qualities—perhaps even to the degree that they may exclude equity. It seems that many of the current inequities in IT classification and specification are the result of different well-intentioned decision makers applying various ad hoc decision making practices over time. The PCA proposal does nothing to ameliorate this problem in that acceptable considerations for changes to existing cars’ specifications are vaguely stated and open to individual interpretation.

9. Given all of these considerations, I recommend the following steps as a remedy to the current make/model equity issues in the IT category:

** Create an additional class between ITA and ITS – this will provide greater latitude in classification and resolve a number of issues as outlined in my proposal, submitted previously. It will address challenges at both ends of the ITS spectrum and at the top of ITA—three places where many commonly cited examples of inequity current exist.

** Establish appropriate minimum and maximum practical weights for the various makes/models of IT car, based on their stock curb weight and legal IT modifications. Do not make it necessary to add really large amounts of ballast or attempt to reach unrealistically low race weights, by reclassifying cars instead. Accept that cars will not necessarily remain in their current classes but establish parameters for each class, such that movements are kept to a minimum.

** Establish a formula for classifying and specifying cars based on their physical attributes. The simplest parameters for consideration are IT-spec engine power/torque (as inputs) and race weight (as an output). While other input variables may be considered (frontal area, Cd, brake swept area, suspension design, etc.), diminishing returns set in quickly so the value of a more complex formula is questionable. Do not allow individual make/model specification allowances to adjust performance.

** IT-spec engine output could be estimated based on SAE net quoted stock figures or a formula that considers displacement, engine type and technology (“old” vs. “new”), valve train design, intake valve area, or other design attributes. Although known power outputs for IT-spec race engines should be considered when developing the formula, final classifications should be based on engine attributes rather than specific makes/models (e.g., 16v DOHC vs. Toyota Corolla GT-S). It is less important precisely what the formula is, than it is that the formula be repeatable and transparent.

** Apply the new formula to a one-time realignment of the IT classes. Should it be necessary to adjust in the future, changes should be made to the formula, rather than to individual models (e.g., carbureted cars lose .1 in the IT-spec engine power multiplier across the board, rather than 240Z gets a 50# weight break). This will attenuate the effect of proposed changes, decrease the potential return (and therefore motivation) for requesting changes, and lessen the number of change requests.

** It bears restating that with ANY system, there are going to be some cars that are inherently better than others. At least with the process described above, differences are small relative to other factors influencing individual driver/car competitiveness, the playing field starts out reasonably level, the process is transparent, and it is possible to assess the value of a given car before it is classified. The application process would also be streamlined, lowering the workload on club personnel and board members, and speeding turnaround.

Respectfully submitted,

Kirk Knestis
Charlottesville, VA
103210

[email protected]
336-378-0127



[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 14, 2003).]

ITSRX7
10-14-2003, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
***OK Guys and Gals... ONLY 16 letters so far???***

This says a lot about your new proposed PCA.

Like I wrote before, when the CB puts a proposal up for member comment, it's fair to assume that it's an idea that they think is strong and would like to implement. When you consider that 99.9% of the membership have seen the proposal, understand it's an idea that the CB is considering and DON'T write in, then at the very least I would consider that a nuetral response.

Most don't feel they have to write in if they agree because they think they are in the majority. 16 responses to me tells a WHOLE different story - the 'average' regional racer isn't against the idea.

AB

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

ITSRX7
10-14-2003, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
[i]This will go out this evening...i]


Kirk,

Well written as usual. I agree with most of this but some I don't think is possible to 'fix', but we have debated that before.

This is the kind of letter that the SCCA loves to get. It outlines the proposed problem(s) and the soultion(s). Do they all make sense and work in the big picture? No, but this is how you get the wheels of the CB turning.

AB

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

Knestis
10-14-2003, 09:12 AM
Oops. Note to self: You don't live in Charlottesville anymore...

Bill Miller
10-14-2003, 05:29 PM
I second what Andy said, nicely written Kirk! I honestly wish I had the time to sit down and craft something like that.

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

Knestis
10-14-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Wow - there's a surprise! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

Since my concerns with "competition adjustments" haven't - for the most part - been addressed by "performance compensation adjustments," it was easy to write. It's essentially a revision of my previous input on the topic.

Regarding not changing my views, there isn't a damned thing wrong with being true to first principles that underly detail opinions about policy. In truth, a lot of folks spend a lot of energy arguing minute details of rules without clarifying for anyone - least of all themselves - what they think is fundamentally important.

Most of the whining about the IT rules has more to do with the processes applied than it does the actual result and we still diddle around the edges of change without addressing the fundamental issues.

K

Jake
10-14-2003, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
there isn't a damned thing wrong with being true to

Didn't say there was. You've been consistant and you've taken the time to clarify your opinions. My hat's (or hemet's) off to ya.

Jake
10-15-2003, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I second what Andy said, nicely written Kirk! I honestly wish I had the time to sit down and craft something like that.


Most of us won't take the time to read something like that! Kirk, I still don't know why you're not on the CB - can't you do consulting for them thru phone conferences? Very well written, and I agree totally. I know you don't agree with me, but I still don't think that the PCA runs contrary to anything you are saying - the proposals are far from mutually exlusive. That said, I do like what you wrote better than what I read in fasttrack. Maybe it's just easier to swallow in smaller steps.

oanglade
10-15-2003, 08:15 AM
Even though I already sent my letter, I kind of want to send another one that says "What he said!".

Banzai240
10-15-2003, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
** Create an additional class between ITA and ITS...

Do not make it necessary to add really large amounts of ballast or attempt to reach unrealistically low race weights, by reclassifying cars instead. Accept that cars will not necessarily remain in their current classes but establish parameters for each class, such that movements are kept to a minimum.

OK, first the disclaimer... There is NO hostile intent in this post, I just need a couple of questions considered and possibly answered...

1) If we are going to realign the classes, and people are willing to "accept that cars will not necessarily remain in their current classes", why is it necessary to establish another class when we have 2 of the 4 existing classes essentially stagnant from a growth (new cars being added) standpoint? Would it not behoove us to do a one-time shuffle to better utilize the classes we currently have? OR, is the answer to just leave ITB and ITC alone and only "mess" with the classes that traditionally get messed with?

OR, do we truely need the grainularity of 5 classes to classify any newer model cars effectively?

2) Are competitors in these classes willing to "accept" an influx of additional cars to "their" classes? It appears on the surface here that there are MANY that don't like to see their boat rocked for any number of reasons, not the least of which is fear that the competition might get tighter...

Comments? Opinions?

Thanks,



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

ITSRX7
10-15-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
It appears on the surface here that there are MANY that don't like to see their boat rocked for any number of reasons, not the least of which is fear that the competition might get tighter...



And it strikes me that these are the same people who rail against CA's by quoting the 'no guarantee of competivness' quote.

In the context of this question:

I think an additional class is the way to go. If you do a major re-shuffle with a 4 class structure, a LOT gets pushed down into B and C that would obsolete the current food chain. The goal IMHO is to level off the top and insert a pocket that has enough cars inside it's performance envelope to thrive.

AB

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

Knestis
10-15-2003, 11:13 AM
Semi-random thoughts (while I'm supposed to be working)...

A fifth class between A and S would allow targeted changes where the complaints of lack of equity are most often heard - at the top of A and both ends of S. This would move changes forward with the minimum disruption of other classes.

ITC defines the floor and it is difficult to monkey with it. It could be pushed down by the inclusion of lower-performing cars but there really aren't many new ones coming on-stream since in general, performance of stock cars has increased over the years. It can't be raised above that defined by actual participation because folks would be left with nowhere to "move down" to.

With regard to Item 2, Darin, you have hit the nail on the head: Change would be resisted by those currently in positions of power (competitiveness) and people will howl like mad at the results - primarily if they perceive that they are arbitrary or subjectively reached.

The beauty of using qualities of cars to make classification and specification decisions (rather than expectations or perceptions of performance or potential), cars get grouped in predictable, repeatable, transparent ways. There is very little room to bitch about lost competitiveness.

K

Bill Miller
10-15-2003, 07:24 PM
Darin,

I believe it's a case of needing the increased granularity (which is what I put in my letter to the CB). If you just re-shuffle the existing 4 classes, you'd be achieving the same thing as adding a class. But only at the top. The way I envision a reshuffle (w/o any PCA's or anything else), the slow S cars go to A, and the slow A cars go to B. Maybe the slow B cars go to C. What you've done is essentially shifted the problem from the top of the category to the bottom.

As I've stated on numerous occasions, the entire performance band of cars currently on the market, has shifted from what it was 20ish years ago, when IT was born. Since there are really no new ITC and ITB cars, you're stuck w/ trying to drop everything into two classes, rather than four. You can't reshuffle things w/o dumping on the folks at the bottom, as they have nowhere to go.

I honestly don't think the A3 Golf would have been moved to ITB had there been a class between ITA and ITS. And it really doesn't matter if it's between A and S, or above S. What matters is that we need the additional granularity.

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

Greg Amy
10-16-2003, 08:27 AM
I have to give Kirk yet another "amen, brother" on his long letter. Nail-on-head and all that. I support his ideals, plus:

- add a class between ITS and A for better granularity. No downside that I an think of. Sure "but it's another class" but So What? Same number of cars, maybe even MORE cars due to increased interest; what's the problem here?
- Just as we did in Showroom Stock until the mid-90's, all newly-classified cars go into ITS for their first year of eligibility. At the end of the year they can be reconsidered for classification elsewhere. This removes the possibility of accidentally classifying an overdog into a lower class plus it gives the competitor a year to develop the car and deomnstrate where it should go.

Greg

Banzai240
10-16-2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Since there are really no new ITC and ITB cars, you're stuck w/ trying to drop everything into two classes, rather than four. You can't reshuffle things w/o dumping on the folks at the bottom, as they have nowhere to go.

Aren't we essentially "dooming" at least ITC to an eventual demise with this thinking? Surely there are cars in ITB that, with the addition of 100lbs or ??? would fit fine in ITC without disrupting the "competition" there. If that proves to be true, then wouldn't it also be true for ITB, ITA, etc...???

I see your logic here, and am not saying it's not valid, but I need to understand this whole "dumping on ITC/ITB" thing. If cars are dropped down and adjusted accordingly (ok, Kirk... we AREN'T discussing the details of that, so don't get all riled up! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ), would we not be doing those classes some good by adding more cars?

Perhaps a good exercise here would be to map out a possible scenario of this option, so we can see what things would look like? What would IT look like if a shuffling were to take place that took the bottom-feeders from each class (except ITC, of course), and did some redistribution of cars? Then, I suppose we could discuss what would have to be done to make this work, and whether or not is was feasible and would solve the issues. There was a time, after all, when everything was just fine with ITA and ITS and the "granularity" was fine... Was the change in this sudden? Did it involve a couple of select classifications? Is it industry driven? Was it due to technology changing and people not fully understanding the ramifications and actual performance, driving cars to be inappropriately placed into ITS that perhaps truely belonged in ITA? ("fear of the 4-valve" is what I like to call that...) What happened?

It would be my view that these kinds of questions need to be appropriately explored before essentially dooming ITC to an eventual demise by not adjusting all the classes to meet the supply... Perhaps that's bound to happen anyhow? Great responses... Let's keep talking...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 16, 2003).]

ITSRX7
10-16-2003, 09:35 AM
You can 'freshen' ITS with new incoming cars. You can 'freshen' ITA with slow cars from ITS. You can 'freshen' ITB with slow cars from ITA, You can 'freshen' ITC with slow cars from ITB...but the slow cars from ITC, which is already a "catch-all" of sorts, get buried alive.

By adding a new class between S and A, you can keep ITB and C in realative balance while addressing the huge amount of cars that are tweener S and A. I see this as a good thing for one main reason, it keeps a class or two avaiable for someone on a budget of $5000 per car. No $20K point of entry...

This DOES NOT however, solve the BIGGEST issue PCA's could address, a car in ITS that dominates. We NEED a provision to fix a mistake. PCA's do that AND, in a limited way, allow tweaks to the current structure to create classes that are more balanced and are better subscribed. They are NOT intended to ceate equality throughout IT.

AB

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

Banzai240
10-16-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
...but the slow cars from ITC, which is already a "catch-all" of sorts, get buried alive.

I agree with what you are saying, but in the interest of continuing this dialog... are there any specific examples of ITC cars that are "slow" and that would be put out to pasture should some newer cars enter the class??? I haven't sat down to really analyze it yet, but is it possible that there really WOULD not be many cars injected into ITC? If the problem really exists at the top, then as the problem rolled "down the hill", so to speak, isn't it possible that the "problem" would be dilluted so much by the point that it got to ITC that there really wouldn't be that many, if any, cars making that move, and that those that did would likely have been better served being in ITC in the first place?

I guess I'm trying to not worry so much about the "theory" of making changes, and starting to try to look more at the facts of making changes. A lot of these worries are in fact, theorical, or hypothetical situations that may not actually exist. Until we understand that, one way or the other, IT would be better served if we explored the possibilites before saying something simply can't be done...

I'll try to look into this over the next week. If anyone else wishes to do the same and compare notes, that would be great...


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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 16, 2003).]

Knestis
10-16-2003, 05:47 PM
It occurs to me that part of the (potential) problem in ITC might be imaginary. Has anyone done any weeding of the ITCS C list? It doesn't make any sense trying to leave room for the Datsun 1200 if there aren't any out there anymore. (NOTE that I don't know whether there are, one way or another.)

K

Bill Miller
10-16-2003, 07:44 PM
Darin,

I don't see how it's "dooming" ITC. You talk about adding 100# to ITB cars going to ITC. Isn't it a bit premature considering that PCA's haven't been implemented? I didn't see any weight adjustment on the A3 Golf 2.0 8v when it was moved to ITB.

If you can have 1.7, 1.8, and 2.0 8v VW's in the same class, why shouldn't you be able to have 1.8 and 2.0 16 VW's in the same class? I wouldn't be surprised if you see a letter or two requesting the 2.0 16v Golf/Jetta be moved from ITS to ITA. And w/ the movement of the A3 Golf to ITB, I think you'll see folks requesting the move of the 1.8 8v Rabbit GTI from ITB to ITC.

I do agree though, that a clearly defined, transparent classification process needs to be in place before either a new class is added or the existing classes are shuffled.

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

Banzai240
10-16-2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

I don't see how it's "dooming" ITC. You talk about adding 100# to ITB cars going to ITC. Isn't it a bit premature considering that PCA's haven't been implemented? I didn't see any weight adjustment on the A3 Golf 2.0 8v when it was moved to ITB.

Nope... unless I'm reading the rules incorrectly, the SCCA doesn't NEED PCAs to do this type of move. Please note the following:


GCR 17.1.11. Change of Specifications -
"Specifications on cars classified for the first time, or reclassified, may be changed on thirty (30) day's notice during the first year of competition if the advanced estimates of performance are grossly inaccurate."

So, we (the club) has a year to make any adjustments to these reclassifications...



I do agree though, that a clearly defined, transparent classification process needs to be in place before either a new class is added or the existing classes are shuffled.


I often wonder if this is really the case, or if we just need to take the initiative and follow the rules we have more acutely? The ITCS rules state the following:


ITCS 17.1.4.B. INTENT -
"Entrants shall not be guaranteed the comptitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than reclassficiation, are not allowed."

This gives the avenue to perform the reclassification, and, when combined with the statement from the GCR above, the process by which to make the weight adjustments.

NOW, if there was just some practical, somewhat inclusive way to trigger the change and to calculate the need for weight, then the shuffling we've been talking about would require almost no adjustments to the current rules to accomplish...

Just some food for thought...

(Bill... thanks for the well thought out response... I like this type of dialog much better, as I'm sure you do to... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )


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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 16, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 16, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-17-2003, 12:28 AM
Darin,

A couple of things w/ that. I don't think you get enough cars w/ enough development in that first year, unless the car is such a gross overdog that it probably shouldn't have been classified where it was in the first place. And as far as cars that get 'moved down' (I just can't see a car that gets 'moved up' dominating), other than the A3 Golf, I can't think of any other car that's been 'moved down' in the last 10 years. It'll be interesting to watch what happens w/ it next year.

The other point also ties in w/ how well cars do the first year, and the only option to correct problems being reclassification. How do you deal w/ a car like the E36, that emerges as an overdog after a couple of years of development, and is benefited by an advantageous rule change (open ECU rule)? The first year has passed, and there's no place to move the car up to, as it's already in the top class. BTW, anybody remember when the weight on the E36 325 was changed? Was it w/in the first year?

And, IIRC, when the Accord was moved from ITB to ITA, there was no weight change. Peter Keane can probably speak to this better than I can, but I thought that a request for a weight reduction was turned down because it would have constituted a competition adjustment.

BTW, how do you follow a rule "more acutely"

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 17, 2003).]

Banzai240
10-17-2003, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
BTW, how do you follow a rule "more acutely"


acutely A*cute"ly, adv.
In an acute manner; sharply; keenly; with nice discrimination.

Keenly perceptive or discerning...
Reacting readily to stimuli or impressions

I suppose I meant it in the sense of actually being aware, in an acute manner, of what rules are already on the books and how they apply to the situation... Not so much "following a rule", as "applying the rules" or simply being aware that they exist...

We already have rules in place that would allow us to reorganize the classes. Cars that get reclassified don't have to wait for a "development period", since they most likely have been in the previous class for some time...

Again, just thoughts that I'm hoping some of you would think about and help develop to either an end, or possibly a beginning...

As for the rest of what you mention (E36, Acura from ITB to ITA, etc...) All before my time, so I can't comment on what was or wasn't done. I'll have to leave it to someone else to fill us in on those situations...

Not really so concerned about what has been done, so much as what will be done...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 17, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-17-2003, 01:43 AM
Not really so concerned about what has been done, so much as what will be done...



Darin, those that ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

And since you feel that there is no need for a new class, don't see the need for a transparent classification process, and feel that we already have rules in place to handle classification issues, is it safe to assume that you don't support the PCA initiative?

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

Knestis
10-17-2003, 07:59 AM
I concur with D. that the text of the rules already allows for reclassification and re-specification when cars are moved. This hasn't been pursued with any consistency or apparent forethought however (obviously).

The problem has been and will continue to be the process - not the rules - aggravated by political/social considerations. PCAs do nothing to change this and, if we aren't going to change anything with a change, there isn't any point.

K

Banzai240
10-17-2003, 10:28 AM
http://www.coloradoscca.org/prodcar/images/smiles/icon_frustrated.gif


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin, those that ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

I'm NOT ignoring the past... I said I wasn't AS CONCERNED with it as I was with what happens in the future... I was very concise, so stop trying to twist my words... I learn from past, apply it to the present, and try not to repeat mistakes in the future... BUT I'm not going to dwell there, because I can't do much about what happened before I got here. The best I can do for our members is try not to repeat those mistakes...



<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And since you feel that there is no need for a new class, don't see the need for a transparent classification process, and feel that we already have rules in place to handle classification issues, is it safe to assume that you don't support the PCA initiative?</font>

Well, I guess this is where the conversation ends, because I'm not going to drag a perfectly good discussion down this path again... I will, however, answer to your accusations and question:


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And since you feel that there is no need for a new class...</font>

While I don't see the need for another class, I never said that it wasn't there. That was the point of starting this discussion... to explore the issue and try to discover that one way or the other... I believe that, as an ITAC member, it's my job to be thorough and explore all angles, which is what I was doing here, as in most of my other inquiries...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...don't see the need for a transparent classification process...</font>

I NEVER said or indicated this. It's been my position that it would be difficult to do, but have never said it shouldn't be done... In fact, just a few posts up I said:

"NOW, if there was just some practical, somewhat inclusive way to trigger the change and to calculate the need for weight..."

I don't know how you read that, but it sounds like "process" to me...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...and feel that we already have rules in place to handle classification issues</font>

We are discussing the option of RECLASSIFYING VEHICLES... This is a conversation discussing the rules that already exist for reclassifying IT cars... That's it... I have made no comment or otherwise suggested that there are rules "in place to handle (ALL) classification issues"... Again, please stop adding meaning to what I say...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...is it safe to assume that you don't support the PCA initiative?</font>

You know what... NO, it is NOT safe for YOU to assume anything about me, because you don't do it very well...

I don't recall discussing PCAs in this conversation, other than to say to you the following:
"Nope... unless I'm reading the rules incorrectly, the SCCA doesn't NEED PCAs to do this type of move."

This was in direct reference to your comment about adding weight to cars when they are reclassified...

I have never waivered on my support of the PCA proposal, and am not now... It is a workable solution to many of the issues in IT today. But it's already on the table, and while we are waiting to see what the membership reaction is, I just thought we could talk about something else...

It was nice while it lasted...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 17, 2003).]

ITSRX7
10-17-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
The problem has been and will continue to be the process - not the rules - aggravated by political/social considerations. PCAs do nothing to change this and, if we aren't going to change anything with a change, there isn't any point.

K

This is where we diverge. Just because the process isn't transparent, doesn't mean it's broken. Just because someone can't validate THEIR position, doesn't mean it's broken.

I WISH it was possible, I don't think it is. As has been debated, there are way to many subjective items to take into account that no formula can be applied universally. Anyway...

The problem IS with the rules currently. There is no provision to correct mistakes and change things as time/technology march forward. Seems simple to me.

AB
BTW: Where does Darin get all the cool smilies? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

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

Knestis
10-17-2003, 01:07 PM
...ah, but D. makes an eloquent presentation that there IS in fact room in the current rules to correct changes - albeit using the blunt instrument of reclassification.

Weights MAY be tweaked when cars are moved but in practice (a) cars are very rarely moved, (B) the process and motivation for such moves are suspect due to lack of transparency, and © when cars HAVE BEEN moved, their weights seem not to have been re-examined. There has been room to fix many mistakes for years but the Comp Board has chosen not to.

What organizational (or cultural?) change is mandated by the PCA proposal to make the application of the suggested remedies more likely, more consistent, and more transparent?

Kirk (who used one such move as the catalyst for his race car purchase)

ITSRX7
10-17-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
...ah, but D. makes an eloquent presentation that there IS in fact room in the current rules to correct changes - albeit using the blunt instrument of reclassification.
EXCEPT where I have stated time and time again the real problem lies, in ITS. When an overdog rises to the surface due to a mistake, there needs to be a mechanism for a fix. None now.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Weights MAY be tweaked when cars are moved but in practice (a) cars are very rarely moved, (B) the process and motivation for such moves are suspect due to lack of transparency, and © when cars HAVE BEEN moved, their weights seem not to have been re-examined. There has been room to fix many mistakes for years but the Comp Board has chosen not to.</font>
When you JUST reclass a car, it fits into the current rule structure. When you reclass AND adjust weight, it is a comp adjustment - not allowed in the current ruleset - so I disagree with your premise that the CB has had the opportunity to fix mistakes but hasn't.

Again, the transparancy of the process has nothing to do with its effectivness. Perceived, maybe but in reality, no. We need PCA's to fix mistakes and bolster classes.

I can't stress enough how much subjectivity needs to be applied in these situations. There can be no formula IMHO.

AB

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

Banzai240
10-17-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
EXCEPT where I have stated time and time again the real problem lies, in ITS. When an overdog rises to the surface due to a mistake, there needs to be a mechanism for a fix. None now.

I agree completely...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">When you reclass AND adjust weight, it is a comp adjustment - not allowed in the current ruleset...</font>

Actually... not really accurate if you consider the following part of the current ruleset:


GCR 17.1.11. Change of Specifications -
"Specifications on cars classified for the first time, or reclassified, may be changed on thirty (30) day's notice during the first year of competition if the advanced estimates of performance are grossly inaccurate."

The rules have been in place to make adjustments to weights of "reclassfied" cars within a year of the reclass taking place...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Again, the transparancy of the process has nothing to do with its effectivness. Perceived, maybe but in reality, no. We need PCA's to fix mistakes and bolster classes.</font>

I'm with Andy on this one... effectiveness has nothing to do with the ability to "see" the process... I mean hell... we can "see" the processes within the court system, and they don't work worth a DAMN! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

PCAs add a good component to the rules we currently have in place to correct issues within IT...



<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">There can be no formula IMHO.</font>

I think it would be tough to come up with an all inclusive classification formula, but I do think it would be possible to come up with a simpler, more basic approach to at least getting the car in the correct class... Even if that's a basic Wt/HP ratio based on some simple factors, the subjectivity could then be applied to reach the final weight...

From what I've seen calculated with just about every method presented... (Wt/HP, IT2 calculator, etc...) there are numbers that result that make little sense and need to be "manually" adjusted anyhow (unrealisticly low or high weights, etc...), so subjectivity is going to have to be applied to almost any case... in my opinion, anyhow...



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

ITSRX7
10-17-2003, 02:43 PM
GCR 17.1.11. Change of Specifications -
"Specifications on cars classified for the first time, or reclassified, may be changed on thirty (30) day's notice during the first year of competition if the advanced estimates of performance are grossly inaccurate."
----------------------------------------

The rules have been in place to make adjustments to weights of "reclassfied" cars within a year of the reclass taking place...

I stand corrected. If that rule read "3 years" instead of 1 year, you would catch a lot more flies.

AB


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

Banzai240
10-17-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
I stand corrected. If that rule read "3 years" instead of 1 year, you would catch a lot more flies.

AB

I couldn't agree more! Only thing about that is that this section of the GCR applies to ALL classes (it's in the GCR afterall, not just the ITCS) and so it may be more difficult to get a change there... Still, it is another thing worth considering... (same can of worms, different method, perhaps?? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )


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

Knestis
10-17-2003, 03:48 PM
For the record, I haven't said squat about formulas in the last several months. Also, to clarify - transparency doesn't FIX problems: It discourages some of them from starting and allows us to see what we need to do to address the others.

K

Banzai240
10-17-2003, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Also, to clarify - transparency doesn't FIX problems: It discourages some of them from starting and allows us to see what we need to do to address the others.

K

So, if transparency means the CB coming out and stating that cars are classified based on perceived performance, or estimates thereof, and educated "best guesses"... where do you go from there? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif It's "transparent" then, isn't it?

Why do I have a feeling that we'd end up right back here asking the same questions all over again? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

If the process works by making some estimations, and then making some more estimations based on the results of the first estimations, and then perhaps making another estimation some time later... You are going to hit your mark sooner than you might think...

Isn't there a search algorithm that works on a sorted list and finds a target in less then 7 steps or something like that??? Grab the midpoint, < or >???, grab the midpoint of that result, < or >??? grab the midpoint of that result, < or >????... I have to think we could "guestimate" within a more reasonable amount of "guesses"...

Not perfect, but not that hard to figure out either, so at least you'd know how the process works... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

[DISCLAIMER: (for those who do not recognize the "smiley" as a universal "light-hearted conversation" symbol) Not in any way endorsing or advocating the above "system"... Just working one angle of the situation.]

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 17, 2003).]

Geo
10-17-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
For the record, I haven't said squat about formulas in the last several months. Also, to clarify - transparency doesn't FIX problems: It discourages some of them from starting and allows us to see what we need to do to address the others.

To some extent I agree with your Kirk. To another I don't.

Unless the rules are simply something like MT2 were the leveling is built into the rules (if you include an inlet restrictor). In MT2 all cars effectively get to equalize the major elements that control performance and face the same limitations (wheel size, brake size, breathing which in turn regulates hp, etc.). That does not exist in IT and thus if we do decide we need to start leveling the performance of cars in a class that still currently has no guarantee of competitiveness, it will still come down to subjective adjustments.

In that case we just end up with more to argue about. I still cannot say enough about MT2. Considering your desire for simple rules that don't require tweaking to equalize cars, I'm still shocked you aren't pushing MT2. I personally think it's a winner. If I weren't building a car that doesn't fit the category, I'd build one to MT2 rules and help launch it. I think it would be a great class. Perhaps I could even convince one of my NISsport partners to build their car to MT2 specs. I'd be jealous.


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

Geo
10-17-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
BTW: Where does Darin get all the cool smilies? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Like this? http://forum.e46fanatics.com/images/smilies/moon.gif 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

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 17, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-17-2003, 05:09 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">While I don't see the need for another class, I never said that it wasn't there</font>

Darin,

Did you actually read this before you hit the 'submit' button?

And while your post may have sounded like 'process', there was nothing in there about 'transparent'.

I'm still interested in finding out when the weight on the E36 was initially changed. Do any of you ITAC folks have access to this information?

Darin,

You've pointed out that the tools to correct mistakes already exist. However, as Kirk pointed out, the CB has not availed themselves of those options in recent memory. Given that track record, what's to make anyone think that the PCA thing will be any different? Especially when they use language like 'extremely rare'.

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

Banzai240
10-17-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,
Did you actually read this before you hit the 'submit' button?

As a matter of fact... I did, because I had to type it twice since I forget to put in my password when submitting, and the original note got lost...

It still means what I meant when I typed it... I, personally, don't see the need to add another IT class.... That does NOT, however, mean that there is NOT a need for one. Simply put, the need may exist and I just may not see it yet... Hence, the conversation with all of you to try to bring the facts to the surface. With the facts in hand, I may change my mind, or validate my current beliefs...



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

Knestis
10-17-2003, 06:03 PM
Okay - do we wanna talk about formulas? Hmm? Because I can...

K

Banzai240
10-17-2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - do we wanna talk about formulas? Hmm? Because I can...

K

OK, how about a formula similiar to your IT2 equation that will class all the cars into 4 classes instead of 5... http://www.rx7club.com/forum/images/smilies/gotrice.gif


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

Bill Miller
10-17-2003, 07:42 PM
Sorry Darin, I'm really not picking on you. It's just that it had so much of a political double-talk ring to it.

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

Geo
10-17-2003, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Okay - do we wanna talk about formulas?

OK.....

Lessee......

Take a blender.

Add ice.

A can of frozen limeade.

2/3 cup of Tequila

1/3 cup Triple Sec

Blend

Pour into a large glass such a large beer mug. No wimpy little glasses. Add a shot of Grand Marnier and you have the perfect formula. http://forum.e46fanatics.com/images/smilies/boink.gif

http://forum.e46fanatics.com/images/smilies/slap.gif



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

lateapex911
10-17-2003, 09:14 PM
What about Shiner Bocks???

You ARE bringing me one to the ARRCs, riiiight??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

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

Knestis
10-17-2003, 09:41 PM
Okay, Darin. History review...

In the fall of 2001, members of this board were kicking around conversations about power-to-weight ratios of various cars and Bill M. suggested something that really clicked for me - the idea of using different multipliers to baseline weights for cars in each IT class. I started an Excel doc (an evolution of which I still have) that allowed me to start with estimates of OE- and IT-spec horsepower and weights.

I used some existing estimates to ballpark multipliers - the "Miller Ratio" number - that could then be factored onto power figures to (a) determine if cars were comparably classified, and (B) ultimately treat weight as a dependent (or outcome) variable. This thinking was applied to a growing dataset of cars and, back-of-the-envelope, proved to be a pretty good predictor of real-world competitiveness among existing cars in the classes where they were actually running: That is to say, a car that fell out "light" of the average MR number for a class (better power/wt ratio) tended to be more successful in the results. Conversely, cars that fell out "heavy" tended to be dogs and the farther out they were, the doggier...

Problem was that there was a big gap emerging between A and S. Understand that my initial effort at promoting change was to apply a formulaic classification scheme to C, B, A, and S. History will tell you that this idea was roundly shouted down, supporting my belief - and that of a lot of other researchers - that people just don't understand statistics, particularly if the numbers are contrary to what they want to hear.

Given the lack of enthusiasm - ahem - demontrated for a major overhaul, I started toying with the idea of creating a new class to address some of the commonly-complained-about problems at the top of A, and both ends of S: IT2 came to life but that's not the topic of today's lesson. A later evolution of the formula applied a second multiplier to engine type, to accommodate the fact that not all engines gain the same kind of power going from stock to IT trim.

A formula could indeed be applied to the existing four classes but it would result in some really nasty compromises - hundreds of pounds of ballast in some cars, others left with no chance of meeting the minimum required to meet their class index, and lots of movement from class to class. The current MR numbers for the five-class structure are...

ITC = .048
ITB = .058
ITA = .0632
IT2 = .069
ITS = .082

The race weight formula is...

(Stock HP x engine multiplier / MR number) + 200

You will notice first that the MRs are NOT linear. They were devised to impose the least amount of weight change on existing cars as was practical. Even at that, some cars just can't stay where they are if these "best fit" numbers are applied, since they require too much ballast to be safe or can't make the required minimum. The breaks between class MR numbers are also not consistent because auto makers tend to build cars in "classes." The numbers had to accommodate cars that were already classified, remember. I couldn't just pick cars that were alike and leave others out in the cold.

The short answer Darin is that it started there - with 4 classes - but practicalities made it unworkable, even if one DID agree with the first principles of the thing. And nobody here did.

That said, your point (Darin) about making progressively tighter estimations - analogous to the foundation of calculus - is an excellent one. Each successive estimate (all of which can be seen as using the same kind of energy, time, or money) gets you closer but LESS closer each time. This kind of thinking is at the center of my long-running arguments FOR formulas. The key is coming up with one that takes the most variance out of the "competitiveness" equation as is practical, making the first estimate that gets you the most bang for your buck. We actually get TWO cuts using the current formula - engine and class multipliers.

The good news is that taking ALL of the variance due to make/model selection out of the equation is NEVER going to account for more than a small bit of any number of OTHER factors - driver skill, engineering talent, and a lot of other aspects of making a car go fast. It doesn't matter that suspension design accounts for an additional TINY little fraction of the total - it is insignificant compared to power/weight ratio, which is in turn insignificant compared to driver skill. I would love to do a study to test the hyphothesis that the single best predictor of an individual car's competitiveness is the amount of money spent on development and tires...

The magic of a weight leveling system based on physical attributes of cars would be in its CULTURAL and SOCIAL power, not in its ability to actually change what podiums might look like. Talented drivers with lots of money would still beat the rest of us and there would still be cars that were marginally better choices than others in the same class.

However, there wouldn't be any room for accusations of impropriety, everyone would know what a car's race weight would be before it was classified, and there wouldn't be any incentive to politic. All good things.

K

Geo
10-17-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
What about Shiner Bocks???

You ARE bringing me one to the ARRCs, riiiight??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



Oh yes. I wouldn't go anywhere without my beloved Shiner Bock. I'll make you a Shiner Bock lover as well. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


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

Geo
10-17-2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
History will tell you that this idea was roundly shouted down, supporting my belief - and that of a lot of other researchers - that people just don't understand statistics, particularly if the numbers are contrary to what they want to hear.

Or perhaps they are just Twainists. 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

Bill Miller
10-18-2003, 07:23 AM
Kirk,

All those years in grad. school have obviously done some good! You keep excellent records. You say some things that ring so true. Thank you for reminding me of them, now I'll just have to keep them in mind as I read things here.

George,

Go have another bock ro tequila, or whatever it is you're having.

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

oanglade
10-18-2003, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
What about Shiner Bocks???

You ARE bringing me one to the ARRCs, riiiight??? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif




Where do I sign up for THAT contingency program?

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif



------------------
Ony

Geo
10-18-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by oanglade:

Where do I sign up for THAT contingency program?

http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


You know....

That might not be a bad contingency program....

Run a NISsport sticker, get a Shiner Bock. Hmmm.....

Maybe I should write the Spoetzl Brewery? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif



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

Jake
10-19-2003, 10:30 AM
Trying to catch up on this - sorry I was busy racing this weekend. I really got to stop that stuff, it interferes with these all important threads. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

1'st, for all the poor unfortunate ITC people (consistantly one of our smallest groups in NER), why not move them to an ITD? I know an ITS/IT2/ITA/ITB/ITC 5-placer is basically the same as a ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC/ITD thing, but I think it is conceptiually better to move people down into new classes than move people up. In Solo 2 they did something very similair - but a few H-Stock cars did get marginalized because they didn't create an I-stock.

And as for power to weight ratios: I didn't make a fancy HTML calculator like Krik, but from my calcs, it seems like this might work as a guideline:

Class - (spec lbs)/(mfg hp)
ITS - 16.5
ITA - 19.0
ITB - 21.5
ITC - 24.0
ITD - 26.5

Pop the cars into the highest class that they can make a weight that corresponds to the given lbs/hp number for that class. Of course there needs to be special consideration to weird things like Wankels and cars that get more/less out of IT builds as Kirk points out.

Geo
10-19-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
Pop the cars into the highest class that they can make a weight that corresponds to the given lbs/hp number for that class. Of course there needs to be special consideration to weird things like Wankels and cars that get more/less out of IT builds as Kirk points out.

1) Who gets to decide what cars gain more than others? And how much more?

2) What about cars that are under rated from the factory, like, oh, BMWs?

And why would dinking around with 1 & 2 above leave us with any less bitching than we have now?

Andy how would 1 & 2 above actually be transparent? Where is the formula for 1 & 2 and.....

I'm not trying to knock what Kirk and you have done/are trying to do. But, why turn IT upside down with such a rule when in the end it still comes down to making guesses?

As a racer (IOW, this has nothing to do with my position on the ITAC), I prefer to keep what I know. What's more, member letters seem to suggest the greater IT community tends to feel this way as well.


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

Eagle7
10-19-2003, 11:43 AM
Kirk, thank you for a very well thought-out and well-presented approach. I've been staying out of this issue to date because I'm a relatively new kid on the block, but you've convinced me.
Start with a formula such as Kirk has presented, as simple as possible. Add additional factors as required to account for known significant performance advantages. Above all, make it public and objective.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX7 #13
CenDiv WMR

Banzai240
10-19-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Eagle7:
Start with a formula such as Kirk has presented, as simple as possible. Add additional factors as required to account for known significant performance advantages. Above all, make it public and objective.

Well... that's fine for a newly formed class, but let me ask you ALL this... You all willing to live with the results of what you are asking? Are all those in ITA/B/C willing to accept an influx of cars that were a tad too slow for their former classes? Basically, is IT Broken and a major reshuffling what it needs to get back on track???

I don't recall this much complaining about the "system" before the BMW, CRX, or ITA 240SX got classified... As a matter of fact, people seemed, and still do seem, quite content with just having a place to race their cars...

So, before I'm pounced on for seeing more than one side of this issue, let me clarrify that I'm NOT against such notions as basic formulas, PCAs, or any other attempt to rationalize classifications. It's just part of my job to ask these kinds of questions...



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

ITSRX7
10-19-2003, 08:47 PM
The formula is well thought out but the problem is it can't (not THIS formula's problem - all of them) account for the little adjustments that have to be made based on historical performance - unless you tweak the formula every year then you have a REAL issue.

I think we sort of did this before but try this: Let's take 2 classes where some years of on-track performance have proven these cars to be equals - then plus them into the formula and see what happens.

ITS: RX-7 and 240Z
ITA: CRX and 240SX

How do th erace weights change (if at all?) If they do, I submit the formula is flawed as the 'assumptions' that we made at the front end were incorrect, if the weights stay the same, then you have the start of a great statistical sample to prove it can be done.

To many 'assumptions' have to be factored in to have a set formula - IMHO.

AB

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

Bill Miller
10-19-2003, 09:20 PM
Not a dig, but why are so many people caught up on having a 'perfect' formula? Why can't we use a formula that gets us close and then adjust cars based on individual model performance (via weight only)?

The PCA proposal talks about essentially doing the same thing, only the formula isn't universally applied. What's to say that the CB gets it any closer out of the box than say Kirk's formula would? The PCA proposal talks about adjusting cars after they've been initially classified.

I fail to see how the PCA proposal is any different, other than a public, universally applied formula.

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

Jake
10-19-2003, 10:04 PM
I'm getting a horrible feeling of Deja Vous. I just threw that formula out for shits and giggles. Maybe it could be used as a starting point for new classifications? Or maybe Kirks? I agree with much of what has been said. I refuse to get sucked into this again. I sent the CB my thoughts, and I'm looking forward to a decision.

Raced this week at EMRA where I run in ST-3 with my Toyota MR2 - a class between ITA (ST-2) and ITB (ST-4). Ran with the leaders all through the race. It was a blast. I'm running again with EMRA in two weeks. Maybe I should just start running more EMRA races.

Knestis
10-19-2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
...try this: Let's take 2 classes where some years of on-track performance have proven these cars to be equals - then plus them into the formula and see what happens.

ITS: RX-7 and 240Z
ITA: CRX and 240SX


Not hard in the least but we skipped as step: Demonstrate that the RX7 and 240z, and CRX and 240SX are statistically equal, to the degree that they will cross the finish line at the same time more often than would result by simple chance.

The entire PCA or competition adjustment issue moves forward on popular perceptions of what cars are competitive with what cars - without ANY grounding in numbers. Andy obviously has anecdotal evidence that Z-cars and GenII RX7s are equally matched but I'll bet that they are waaay apart at the end of a regional MORE often than they are right together.

The point of using a formula - I'll keep saying this - is NOT to attempt to ensure that all ITB cars running the Fall Doo-Dah regional at Blunderhills Racepark are equally competitive. It is to remove the appearance of favoritism and the opportunity for silliness, arbitrary decisions, and misperceptions during the classification and specification process.

Kirk



[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 19, 2003).]

ITSRX7
10-20-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
The point of using a formula - I'll keep saying this - is NOT to attempt to ensure that all ITB cars running the Fall Doo-Dah regional at Blunderhills Racepark are equally competitive. It is to remove the appearance of favoritism and the opportunity for silliness, arbitrary decisions, and misperceptions during the classification and specification process.

Kirk

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 19, 2003).]


Well then here you have it. *I* would want to use a formula to be more accurate, not to fight perceptions - especially when *I* believe using a formula is WAY LESS accurate and then REQUIRES PCA's to fix the multitude of issues it creates.

I find it hard to believe that all the hubbub about formulas boils down to just wanting to 'know'. Everyone ALREDY 'knows how cars are classes, and the explanation came out in this months FasTrack - the problem is each car is so different that a universal formula can't be applied.

Kirk, I know you know way more than me about testing and sampling and all that, but if you can't get on board with that simple fact, you will never be happy. It's am imperfect science.


AB

<edit: after reading this, it seems a little snappy, none intended...-AB>
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited October 20, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-20-2003, 06:07 PM
Andy,

How is using a formula 'way less acurate' than somebody picking and choosing from a list of factors to determine where they think the car should be and how much it should weigh?

And as far as people now knowing how cars are classified vis-a-vis that paragraph in FasTrack, what exactly do we know? There are a bunch of factors that were listed, and others that weren't. Some subset of those two lists are applied to a car and that's how it gets classified. Sorry, but that paragraph in FasTrack told us nothing.

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

Knestis
10-20-2003, 08:22 PM
I'm past trying to get happy about the IT classification process, Andy. I know that you and the rest of the ITAC folks have the best of intentions and I'm not going to spend a bunch of energy trying to pitch a case that depends on changing a fundamental assumption about the "way we understand" the purpose of even having classes and rules.

K

ITSRX7
10-20-2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

How is using a formula 'way less acurate' than somebody picking and choosing from a list of factors to determine where they think the car should be and how much it should weigh?

And as far as people now knowing how cars are classified vis-a-vis that paragraph in FasTrack, what exactly do we know? There are a bunch of factors that were listed, and others that weren't. Some subset of those two lists are applied to a car and that's how it gets classified. Sorry, but that paragraph in FasTrack told us nothing.



You don't "pick and choose" from the list of factors, you look at them ALL...

Of the items that were mentioned in FasTrack "...published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency...", explain to me how you put into a hard and fast formula anything but engine specs and weight without assigning completely arbitrary guestimates to the other key factors?

Each car must be looked at from all angles and MOST of those angles are moving targets that must be accounted for. If you can only 'formulate' 25% of the necessary data, then IMHO, you end up opening a pandoras box when you tell someone their car Model X, which has the same HP and MNFG weight as Model Y is x pounds heavier in the ITCS because of 'factors' that have to be accounted for beyond the formula. These factors, better brakes, better suspension, RWD, better aero, etc. are factored in in an unseen environment based on years of data. In my mind, it DEMONSTATES equality and then the UNSEEN takes that away - to me that's a worse situation.

Net/Net: It's impossible to put most of those factors in a formula, so why provide someone a raw number and then have to explain to them why it's different after the factors have been examined and applied?

See what I meen? It's hard to articulate...

AB

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

lateapex911
10-20-2003, 10:53 PM
The single biggest element in a formula, and one that appears easy is hp. But as we've seen, that is the slimiest snake of all! Not only do we not know what engines are capable of developing before anyone's tried, we have a heck of a time finding out after development and everyone's pulling out the smoke and mirrors, and getting all secretive! "My Topspeed 160?? Well, we tried everthing, but all we could get was like, um oh, around..what was it Bob? yeah, somewhere around oh say 119." uh huh.

Don't get me wrong, I like the basic concept, and if we were to start with a fresh slate, and a controlled sample of similar cars, (and less than 100 of them!), I would be all for it.

But as it stands, while it is an eviable goal, I think the application would result in a very lopsided situation.

I do think, however, the ITAC and CB should seek out a "bogey car" or cars in each class, and try to align the new entries with those proven performers.

Philosophically, I see where Kirk is coming from, but if the net net is transpency as he desires, but less equivilency, then I think we've gone backwards.

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

Banzai240
10-21-2003, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
I do think, however, the ITAC and CB should seek out a "bogey car" or cars in each class, and try to align the new entries with those proven performers.

What would those "bogey cars" be??? Give me a list...

Here... Let me try:

ITS - 240Z
ITA - RX-7
ITB - BMW 2002
ITC - Datsun 510

Those are the "traditional" cars for each of the classes, with TONS of track history, so there is little question about their performance potential. Using those as benchmarks, I'm assuming you are suggesting that we could now "Compensate" for the "Performance" of other cars in the class that are either considered overdogs, or underdogs, when compared to the benchmark cars???

Hmmmm.... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

Bill Miller
10-21-2003, 06:23 AM
Andy,

That paragraph also mentioned that 'other factors', that were not enumerated, were used. But it didn't say that all factors were weighted the same for all cars, that's the issue. Without that, it's really nothing more than a SWAG.

In modeling and regression analysis, there can be many factors. However, through the analysis, you can determine which ones have a significant impact on the outcome and which ones don't. For example, I'd be willing to bet that solid vs. vented rotors (same diameter) plays a pretty small part (if even discernable from the 'noise' of driver skill and prep level) in the performance factor of a car. And maybe that's where the rub lies. You talk about all these factors that are 'moving targets', but I contend that most of them get burried due to the background noise (skill and prep).

And, if you look back in the archives, I never advocated a one-shot deal w/ a formula. I advocate a published, simple, evenly applied formula,, and subsequent weight adjustments based on how close the formula was. Look at the formula as a first apporoximation.

/edit/ I know people have argued against a moving weight target w/ the above proposal, but how is that any different than the current PCA proposal? They're talking about potentially changing the weight after the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year, and maybe yet again in the future.

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 21, 2003).]

Knestis
10-21-2003, 07:22 AM
FWIW, the "index" cars that emerged from my math - the ones that would change weight almost not at all in the transition to the formula - were...

ITB - MkII Golf
ITA - Civic Si HB
ITS - e30 BMW 325

Note that the index for ITA would be relatively lower with IT2 poked in there, and I didn't have crap for data for ITC.

I understand you point, Andy but the part of that system that bothers me so much is that it essentially tries to "handicap" cars - using the word distinctly - by looking at their performance on the track, right? The way you know that cars need adjusting is that they turn fast times and win?

In order to even begin to apply "...published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency...", you must first disregard the biggest influences on lap times and finishing position - driver skill, testing and tire budget, preparation level, and engineering talent.

If these critical factors aren't being ignored completely, then they are at least being considered but AT BEST in an extremely informal, subjective manner.

We all seem to "know" that the e36 Bimmer is a dominant winner in ITS. How? Because we keep seeing them win. That seems obvious enough but what if the REAL reason that this particular car "looks like" a winner is because BMW racers have disproportionately larger budgets? They are more likely to buy new tires each weekend and pay James Clay to build them a car that never breaks down. If someone spent $50K building a Triumph TR8, it might "look like" a winner, too.

How do you chase out the driver skill factor? It's a very different thing in a competition-adjustment system when Bob Stretch (or any other recognized talent) is driving the only example of a Nissan 240, than it is if there are a lot of them out there in the hands of drivers with varying skill. There are enough CRXs in ITA that they are spread all the way through the field now. Is the fact that they monopolize the podium evidence that they are overdogs or is it equally fair to say that they are correctly placed because the last three places in the class were held by the same model of car, and were two laps down at the end of a regional?

This kind of system, regardless of what it is called, is almost worse than SWAGing. It turns into something that's almost like social engineering, trying to make everyone equal.

That's what a formulaic system tries to avoid. I am advocating not "equality" on the track - manipulating specs such that every dog can have his day - but instead, am picturing a system that provides a level playing field to allow engineering and driving skill to sort things out.

Bill's point about noise is a great one but I would suggest that he stops short of completing it: The noise (variance) of driver skill ALONE is louder (greater) than brakes, suspension design, aero drag, and a thousand other factors. We ALL know of cases where a fast driver suddenly makes an uncompetitive car run up front, right? We would NEVER consider handicapping drivers themselves, would we?

FasTrack Item: "Any driver who has won a national championship must tape over the left half of his/her visor. Any driver who has won an ARRC title must drive with one hand taped to his/her chest." Effective immediately.

That sounds looney, right? But if we aren't willing to do that, why are we considering adjusting the cars that they drive quickly when their skill has more to do with their finishing record than does the make of car?

If the cars start out something like level, the rest will sort itself out but we have to agree that the point is for the sorting to be based on talent. That's where we differ.

K

ITSRX7
10-21-2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Don't get me wrong, I like the basic concept, and if we were to start with a fresh slate, and a controlled sample of similar cars, (and less than 100 of them!), I would be all for it.


Which is why I think Kirk's formula works so well inside the IT2 framework.

AB

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

ITSRX7
10-21-2003, 08:32 AM
If we are talking about INITIAL classifications here then why would anyone think that car prep and driver skill were factors? This is BEFORE said car turns a competitive wheel, right? The CB is classing based on performance POTENTIAL. If there was a $50K TR8 out there, could it contend in ITS? Maybe - and that's a GOOD thing.

When you class cars, you are effectively COMPARING them to all that is around them and the competition potential those cars have - you always have to compare apples an apples. I think Bill and Kirk have a fundamental problem with trusting the powers that be that they are looking beyond Regional results when they look at on-track performance - I can tell you that we fully understand that you have to look at the best vehicals with the best drivers to even begin to draw conclusions. Take away that core lack of trust and I think you will understand better.

I would love to have a formula-based foundation setter for classing and weights - but *I* UNDERSTAND that is only about 1/4 of the work that must go in to get to the final numbers...I would be willing to bet you WELL OVER half of the membership won't grasp the rest. It's like giving 2 people 1/4 of the same ingrediants to a recipe - then giving one dog food and the other a steak - it won't make sense to people, they will NEED to know the process and it isn't feasible to show everyone everytime.

I think we have beat this down. The lack of negative response from FasTrack on the PCA issue tells me the membership is overwhelmingly for the initiative.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited October 21, 2003).]

Banzai240
10-21-2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
FWIW, the "index" cars that emerged from my math - the ones that would change weight almost not at all in the transition to the formula - were...

ITB - MkII Golf
ITA - Civic Si HB
ITS - e30 BMW 325

Note that the index for ITA would be relatively lower with IT2 poked in there, and I didn't have crap for data for ITC.


Kirk... why wouldn't you base your "base", on the "basic" cars for each class?? The cars you have selected here are hardly the traditional performers for the class, and there can't be that much data on them, as far as performance potential goes... Was that the point?? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

I guess what I'm wondering is why would you pick the realitive newcomer "overdogs" for these classes? Cars which most would agree (don't know about the Golf in ITB...) are improperely classed/weighted in the first place?

I would contend that if you picked a different standard for each class, you'd end up with a "pivot point" of sorts by which cars would either be slightly higher than (weight), or slightly lower than, thereby making it more reasonable to adjust weight around...

It also seems to me that by picking the BMW and the Civic SI, the emphasis would be on speeding up the rest of the cars in the class, which we all know is more expensive and more difficult to achieve... What would have happened had the 1st Gen RX-7 or the RX-3 been selected for ITA? What about the 240Z or 2nd Gen RX-7 or even the 944 in ITS??? These are the more traditional cars with much more history behind them, and are therefor a known quanity, around which the rest of the class would pivot.

Not attacking, just asking....

Thanks,


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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 21, 2003).]

Banzai240
10-21-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
...you must first disregard the biggest influences on lap times and finishing position - driver skill, testing and tire budget, preparation level, and engineering talent...

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this idea that we have to "disregard" some of these items...

What is it we are trying to do here? Isn't it to determine, understand, or otherwise evaluate the performance POTENTIAL for each vehicle? Many seem so willing to cast to the side valuable data that could help us determine that. Who better to show us what a car can do than those that can prepare, develop, and drive it the best? Does that not show us it's POTENTIAL??

It may not be spelled out for you in the wording, but reasonable people can use this information to NOT make an adjustment (the glass is half full), just as easily as they could use it to make an adjustment (the glass is half empty)...

These are the same people that would have to determine if the classification weight that the formula spits out makes any sense, so one way or the other, you're going to have to have faith in the system at some point...


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

EscortGT
10-21-2003, 11:11 AM
Quick thoughts... I have a 93 Escort GT which the SCCA does not currently classify (They class a 91 which is the almost the same, but not quite.). Now im a brand new driver, so lets say i race this car for two years and i suck... so i get down-graded. Someone else then comes in and races a well prepped GT in the same class as me, and destroys the competition because they're a better driver, in a better car than i am. The reverse could also be true could it not? no opinion as im not experienced enough, just a thought.

Jc

EscortGT
10-21-2003, 11:13 AM
I never realised that this topic was 3 pages long till i replied... oops... the comment is still relevant but you guys had the subjecy covered...

Jc

Banzai240
10-21-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by EscortGT:
Now im a brand new driver, so lets say i race this car for two years and i suck... so i get down-graded.

First, Welcome to IT...

Basically, if YOU "suck", then why would any change be made? If Joe Racer gets in your car and still can't make it go, then perhaps it's a case worth looking at.

IT has traditionally been a "hands off" type of class, and I don't know if there is any rush to change that. There is a reason why the clause "on rare occasion" was used...



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

ITSRX7
10-21-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
If Joe Racer gets in your car and still can't make it go, then perhaps it's a case worth looking at.



I would also add: IF and only IF the car has been developed to the Nth degree. You have to have a top driver in a highly prepped car to make any value judgements. 99% of cars and drivers out there don't fall into this category.

AB

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

Bill Miller
10-21-2003, 05:20 PM
Darin,

I think what Kirk meant was that those three cars were the ones that best 'fit' his model. In other words, they were the ones who's current spec. weight was the closest to the 'predicted' weight, by his model. I don't know which version of the Civic Si he was referring to, but I suspect it is the earlier one, rather than the later one, and I don't recall the E30 325 being an overdog.

Andy,


I think we have beat this down. The lack of negative response from FasTrack on the PCA issue tells me the membership is overwhelmingly for the initiative.



I must say, I'm surprised at that comment. That sounds like the Florida people from the last election. All you can say about lack of negative responses is that people don't have an opinion. Now, if you're talking about how many more positive responses you've gotten than negative responses, then you can say that. BTW, just how many positive responses have you gotten? Darin said that there have only been 16 total responses.

You can't say that people approve if they don't say no! All you can say is that they don't have an opinion, one way or the other.

BTW, I'm glad to see that all you were worried about was 'beating down' an alternative idea.

As far as me not trusting the powers that be, you're right, I don't. There have been too many back-room deals and inconsistencies in the past.

I challenge you to show me how using an initial formula followed by subsequent adjustments (if warranted) differs from the PCA proposal.

You mentioned new car classifications. Don't you think that people recognize when a potential front-runner has been classified? Wanna bet on how many A3 Golfs you'll see in ITB grids next year? I bet it's at least 2x-3x the number that were in ITA grids.

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

Banzai240
10-21-2003, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...In other words, they were the ones who's current spec. weight was the closest to the 'predicted' weight, by his model. I don't know which version of the Civic Si he was referring to, but I suspect it is the earlier one, rather than the later one, and I don't recall the E30 325 being an overdog.


You may be right, maybe Kirk can clarify. Also, I mistook the "E30" for a typo... thought he was referring to an "E36"... If you plug that into his formula, it yields the exact classfication weight (2850) for that car, which is an additional reason why I thought he was referring to these cars as the "standards" for the class, and the basis of his calculations...

That being said, I still think that these are NOT the prototypical cars for their various classes, and that if we were to use something with more background and time in competition, even the formula would be more accurate and better represent the respective classes.

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 21, 2003).]

Knestis
10-21-2003, 05:56 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I think we have beat this down. The lack of negative response from FasTrack on the PCA issue tells me the membership is overwhelmingly for the initiative.</font>

This makes me want to not play anymore. Screw the ITAC, screw the club, and screw the entire process if this is the thinking.

Let me translate this into a broader context: I can get a tiny percentage of the voting population in my state to sign a petition, get an initiative on the ballot, then write it such that anyone who doesn't freaking vote gets counted as being in support of my plan? Absofukinlutely NOT okay. If this is how we are going to do this, I will direct all future correspondence to the BOD and President.

Congratulations.

K

ITSRX7
10-21-2003, 07:41 PM
Well now I understand why Kirk and Bill can never be happy. You only read what you want to and then respond with haste.

I have stated - at least 3 previous times (why no blow up then?) - that it was MY interpritation of such a poor response. Let me say it again: When the CB puts an idea out for member comment, you can assume its an idea that they are thinking about putting into action. The very nature of people is that they only speak up when they have an axe to grind. Your ballot example is just plain off. This was an idea put out for member comment and nobody commented. INDIFFERENCE.

So the conclusion *I* draw is that with ONLY 16 letters, half for and half against (about) shows me that there are a lot of people who support - or at the VERY LEAST are indifferent about the idea. Even if all 16 letters were resounding NO's, is that such a large sample that we are to assume they represent the entire membership? Plllease. Is OK with you guys to assume that the THOUSANDS of members who didn't write in are indifferent? How do we count the people who don't express an opinion seeing as how we have received LESS THAN 20 opinions?

And to assert that I am 'beating' down a new idea is frankly insulting. I have sat back and watched you, Bill, get into written clashes with people and now I understand why. Damn that comment P's me off. IMO, you just don't get it. At the very least, you don't get me, and I can live with that.

I apologize to others for the harsh remarks but I am through with trying to explain simple philosophies and big pictures when all some people want is 'to know how', regardless of the process. I feel like I am talking to a 3 year old sometimes, why, why, why, why...because someting just HAVE TO BE because they make sense.

I hate to have to post like this because I feel like I am all over the board like a wild man but I have been poked for the last time.

Like I tried to do before, feel free to contact me offline if you have any comments or would like to engage in an intelligent debate.

AB

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

lateapex911
10-21-2003, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
I think we have beat this down. The lack of negative response from FasTrack on the PCA issue tells me the membership is overwhelmingly for the initiative.

AB



From this comment, I presume you mean that bad news takes the "A" train....in other words, folks will be quick to bitch and squeal when they disagree, but go on with their business when they think things are going their way??

If so, I would agree. If there were vast objections, you would know it by now.

In the case of the 'slow' Escort getting moved down, I don't see the philosophical position of the PCAs, if I understand them correctly, and I believe I do, as supporting that kind of movement. Instead, I think that they will be used as methods of "fixing" (sorry guys!) ITAC and CB misses during the initial weight setting procedure, and as a method of reeling in some of the run away cars that currently exist. Now, IF you and a whole flock of your fellow Escort drivers start cleaning up, and it's easy to see that the Escorts are being driven at 9/10ths, and they still romp, even in the hands of known mid pack drivers, well, get ready for some extra weight, or a move upstream. On the other hand, if you guys are getting slammed at every event, and some known shoes have driven and helped develop a few of them, then maybe, just maybe, you can present a case, with stats and facts to back up your claim, that will result in attention from the ITAC and CB, and in a rare case result in a weight break.

Am I close on that ITAC guys?

What I see, and what I proposed, was a system that could be used to "skim the top", and in super rare and obvious cases, bring up a bottom dweller IF it's a popular model. I suggested leaving the stability that everyone prizes alone as much as possible, but having a method to circle in on a target.

One of the benefits of having the ITAC is getting guys that are on the track and have their ears close to the pavement to help identify cases that fit the above situations.

As a racer, it is often easier to spot 'performance' as you drive against other cars, than it can be by looking at cold numbers. After that, you need to look at all the variables, of course, to determine where that performance comes from. In the end, the on track experience, the experience of others, the cold specifications and numbers, and, dare I say it, the results, can tell a compelling story.


(On edit, I see that Andy was busy typing 200 miles north while I was doing the same, but he submitted first. So, sorry for a bit of redundance.)
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 21, 2003).]

Bill Miller
10-21-2003, 08:49 PM
Andy,

You're the one that was celebrating beating down an idea, not me. If you want to get pissed at me for pointing that out, go right ahead.

And I'd still like for you to show me how the net result of published formula/adjustments is different from the net result of the PCA proposal. Even if the formula isn't perfect, at least it's out in the open. The PCA thing is really no different than things are today, except that the potential to maybe correct a possible mistake exits. You'll still have people scratching their heads wondering how certain cars end up where they do. And people will still wonder if the process if fair and equitable, or if people are taking care of themselves or their friends. But I guess you just don't "get" why that is an issue.

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

ITSRX7
10-21-2003, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

You're the one that was celebrating beating down an idea, not me. If you want to get pissed at me for pointing that out, go right ahead.

Bill,

'Celebrating beating down an idea' is a tortured statement. How do I put it so you can understand? The issue has been "beat to death". No new opinions were being expressed and the debate was turning counter-productive. Geez.



And I'd still like for you to show me how the net result of published formula/adjustments is different from the net result of the PCA proposal. Even if the formula isn't perfect, at least it's out in the open. The PCA thing is really no different than things are today, except that the potential to maybe correct a possible mistake exits. You'll still have people scratching their heads wondering how certain cars end up where they do. And people will still wonder if the process if fair and equitable, or if people are taking care of themselves or their friends. But I guess you just don't "get" why that is an issue.



What I get is that people like you will never be happy no matter what the solution. If you had a formula that established a baseline, you would want the whole process spelled out for you on paper becasue you couldn't understand how you got from Point A to Point B. There are SUBJECTIVE factors that must be accounted for - and the non-trusting folks like yourself will always think the 'system' is trying to screw them, or the guy next to you got the favor from the CB, etc.

I gave you the reasons I thought it was a bad idea a few posts ago. If you disagree, so be it. We can agree to be on opposite sides of the fence on that. As a competitor, I always want to err on the side of accuracy vs. transparency but that is just me. I have also written numerous time WHY I think formulas are less accurate in this scenario. The "net result" may be the same but the road to that result, transparent as it may seem with a formula/adjustment scenario, is much rockier and harder to help people understand - reasons in previous post.

I think the reason you and I get under each others skin a little too much is because you have a general distrust for the system and I have been "the system". I have served in many capacities such as this over my (short by some standards) 14 year SCCA career and have always put the club first - and known all whom I have worked with to do the same. There is just so little to gain from this that I just don't see what the point is to 'working the system'.

In a couple years, if this particular branch of the Club Racing system has chewed me up and spit me out because I felt like I was spinning my wheels against internal political factors, I will gladly post the whos, whats and wheres here. Until then, lets recognize the CB's effort to change the direction of the IT ship by adding a little flexibilty in the way the classes are made up.

AB

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

Geo
10-21-2003, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
The lack of negative response from FasTrack on the PCA issue tells me the membership is overwhelmingly for the initiative.

Did we read the same recent letters?


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

Joe Harlan
10-21-2003, 10:45 PM
Andy: I just want to say thanks to you and the other members that are at least trying to work with the comp-bod to get some attention paid to IT. I have sent a positive response letter to the CB because I feel that what you guys are trying at least gives us a shot at correcting past mistakes. I feel that we can get this done using the existing classes we have and moving cars around to get them there.

Oh and even though I like Bill he does get to be a boil on my Butt sometimes... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Banzai240
10-22-2003, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
...if I understand them correctly, and I believe I do, as supporting that kind of movement. Instead, I think that they will be used as methods of "fixing" (sorry guys!) ITAC and CB misses during the initial weight setting procedure, and as a method of reeling in some of the run away cars that currently exist. Now, IF you and a whole flock of your fellow Escort drivers start cleaning up, and it's easy to see that the Escorts are being driven at 9/10ths, and they still romp, even in the hands of known mid pack drivers, well, get ready for some extra weight, or a move upstream. On the other hand, if you guys are getting slammed at every event, and some known shoes have driven and helped develop a few of them, then maybe, just maybe, you can present a case, with stats and facts to back up your claim, that will result in attention from the ITAC and CB, and in a rare case result in a weight break.

Am I close on that ITAC guys?


It's late, and there has been a lot to read here tonight, but it sounds like you and I see about the same thing, so yes, I think you are close...

I still contend that the system, as it stands, isn't BROKEN, so a complete radical overhaul is not needed, and quite frankly, is NOT what the MAJORITY of the letters we've received (both concerning CAs in general, and later concerning PCAs specifically) WANT! I've posted the former letters previously, and am gathering the current letters in the same format now. I will gladly post a link to them as soon as we get enough to warrent the effort.

IT doesn't need a major change. We (the Club) just needs the ability to make some rather minor tweaks and the ability to, (You got it just right Jake...) fix some past and certainly future mistakes. This would be needed with or without a formula, so in reality, something along these lines is needed REGARDLESS of whether or not a formula is used for the initial classification.

Please write... we need your input...



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

itafiero
10-22-2003, 12:33 AM
My crew responded to the original request for response on whether to have CAs at all.

If that doesn't count we'll send a new one.
If PCAs would improve the time for a car that is uncompetitive to be reclassified sooner than 7 years, which is what my Fiero took, then I might be for it. I guess a second letter is in order. ;->

BTW: From Fast Track I found the numbers, since March, to 15 for and 23+ against.

Geo
10-22-2003, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And I'd still like for you to show me how the net result of published formula/adjustments is different from the net result of the PCA proposal.

OK, at the risk of being burned in effigy, what is the point of running around in circles, just to end up at the same place?

IT is not broken. To turn it up-side down only to end up back in the same place (at best) is simply a non-starter. Any formula will have to be tweaked and that puts us right back to where we started because the tweaking will still be subjective. There will just be more to argue about.

The one thing that is abundantly clear in the member letters is the IT community by and large values stability. Rehashing the classifications with forumulas that will still be tweaked is a bit like $%^$@ing in the wind.


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

OTLimit
10-22-2003, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Wanna bet on how many A3 Golfs you'll see in ITB grids next year? I bet it's at least 2x-3x the number that were in ITA grids.



Gee, Bill. Why do you think nobody built one of these before? Duh. I say that if there are even 5 A3 Golfs run next year, then it's a good thing.

BTW, I have seen no equation that I believe will do any better job than the system now in place. It would just change some of the words in the whining.



------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

rbt510
10-22-2003, 12:04 PM
I can see there are a lot of different opinions, disagreements, and options on this subject, but after three pages and days of debate, where are we? I could add my two cents, but what will it accomplish??

You have all stated your opinions many times over, and now need to take it to the next step. I think that is to get more input from IT participants.

To get feedback from the IT participants, or any large group of people for that matter, you need to put in their laps. Why not send out a ballot to all IT participants that ran in an event in the last two years? I think this is how to get a good representation of the opinions of the members. Asking for feedback in Sports Car is not enough. Also, not everyone looks at this forum.

When there is an important issue, like elections, the regions sent out ballots. Those who have a strong interest in the club or an issue will respond. Those who have little interest in the issue will not respond.

The same thing will happen with this issue. You have to make it easy for the average racer, who can barely find the time to get his Nomex washed between races, to give you the feedback you need to address this topic. To leave it up to a minority would be a shame.


[This message has been edited by rbt510 (edited October 22, 2003).]

planet6racing
10-22-2003, 12:25 PM
To be honest, I just don't care! Whether PCA are there or not, some facts aren't going to change:

1) I have a place to race, and it is damn fun!
2) The PCA formula won't make everyone equal.
and lastly:
3) All the same people that are whining now will continue to whine.

So, to this, I say "WHO CARES!" Let's just make the decision and go. Bump me to ITS. Bump me to ITC and add 400#'s. I don't care. I'm just happy to be out there and am doing this for the fun.

When I get serious, I'll move to a national class.

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

Eagle7
10-22-2003, 12:38 PM
1) Thank you for your service to our club. I don't think we express that often enuf and you guys end up in a crossfire.


Originally posted by ITSRX7:
...There are SUBJECTIVE factors that must be accounted for ...

I'm an engineer, and it's very ingrained in me that differences in performance are based on measurable physical characteristics. So what do you mean by subjective? Please provide an example.

Thanks,

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX7 #13
CenDiv WMR

Bill Miller
10-22-2003, 06:14 PM
Gee, Bill. Why do you think nobody built one of these before? Duh. I say that if there are even 5 A3 Golfs run next year, then it's a good thing.



Lesley, you can ask that question about a lot of cars. Some of them are just dogs in the class they're in. People build them because that's the car they want to race, and they really don't care where they are in the field.

Being a VW guy, I'm always happy to see more VW's at the track (maybe, one day, VWoA will see how many people want to race VW's and will step up and start doing some performance part development), if the A3 Golf is at the top of the ITB heap, then no, I don't think it will be a good thing that there are any of them out there.

Consider this, the A2 16v Golf in ITA weighs 60# less than the 8v version in ITB (2220# vs 2280#). And this is a car that makes 18-20 more hp in stock trim (123hp vs 103-105hp). Either the CB screwed the pooch when they set the weight on the A3 Golf when it was classified in ITA, or it should probably be given some lead on the move down to ITB.

I honestly don't think that people would be building these cars if they didn't think they were going to be a top-dog car in ITB.

And this somewhat relates to Andy's comments about me not trusting the 'system', or having any faith in it. It surprises me that people are willing to put so much trust in a group to subjectively class and spec cars, when they don't have a very good track record at doing it.

And Andy, you obviously know exactly how I think (I'll whine no matter what), so I guess I don't need to post anymore. BTW, you don't know as much as you think you do about me. I just want a system that's internally consistent, gives everyone an equal chance, and makes efforts to eliminate the opportunity for favortism (or at least the perception thereof). But, I guess there's about as much of a chance of that as there is of VWoA actually supporting the people that race their cars! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

Geo
10-22-2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by rbt510:
You have all stated your opinions many times over, and now need to take it to the next step. I think that is to get more input from IT participants.

I think everyone on the ITAC will agree with this.


Originally posted by rbt510:
To get feedback from the IT participants, or any large group of people for that matter, you need to put in their laps. Why not send out a ballot to all IT participants that ran in an event in the last two years? I think this is how to get a good representation of the opinions of the members. Asking for feedback in Sports Car is not enough.

1) Sending out the ballot you describe would be costly and extremely time consuming. Furthermore it would delay any action. The CB already gets grief for not acting quickly enough.

2) Sending out ballots is probably only very marginally better than Fastrack. I was the Vice-President of the SE-R Club of America and one of my duties was to conduct an election via ballots mailed with postage paid postcards sent to each member via USPS. The results were pretty pathetic.

3) I would argue (my position on the ITAC aside) that if someone cannot write a letter of response for an issue, they obviously don't care enough about that issue, or perhaps all club issues if they don't bother to read Fastrack.


Originally posted by rbt510:
Also, not everyone looks at this forum.

Besides, the Internet is not the proper medium for such issues.



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

rbt510
10-23-2003, 09:16 AM
George,
So what can be done to more input? For the CB change the rules with little input from members seems to only serve a few who problably complained the most. (ie. squeaky wheel gets the grease) Too bad.
I'm not sure what other regions do, but the NE region sends election ballots many times a year, so to include another page for major rule changes would not incur much cost and could help get more input on important issues.
As far as the CB not acting quickly enough, this rules change is over a year away, so there is plenty of time to do more than post it once in FastTrack.
I am going to write and bug others to do the same.
The internet may not be the proper medium to resolve the issue, but it helps more people become aware of what's going on in the club.

Good luck with the ITAC.

Bob Tackman
NER

Geo
10-23-2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by rbt510:
George,
So what can be done to more input?


Wish I knew. Seriously.


Originally posted by rbt510:
For the CB change the rules with little input from members seems to only serve a few who problably complained the most. (ie. squeaky wheel gets the grease) Too bad.


I don't know as this is a done deal. More than half the letters are against, but a number of them are from CRX or 325i drivers, but there is no clear mandate.


Originally posted by rbt510:
I'm not sure what other regions do, but the NE region sends election ballots many times a year, so to include another page for major rule changes would not incur much cost and could help get more input on important issues.
As far as the CB not acting quickly enough, this rules change is over a year away, so there is plenty of time to do more than post it once in FastTrack.


Two different animals I'm afraid. One event is a strictly regional event and the other affects all regions. Furthermore, every member gets Fastrack. It's the way the club communicates these issues to the general membership. If the club were to make individual personal mailings for every issue, it would not even have time to hold races (yes I'm exaggerating a little), not to mention the cost would be outrageous. If you do a national mailing only for certain issues, who decides what issues and how is this decided? My point is that it's not that simple. The club already mails the magazine and it's cost and time efficient to communicate issues this way.


Originally posted by rbt510:
I am going to write and bug others to do the same.

I, and the other ITAC members encourage you to do so. Thanks.


Originally posted by rbt510:
The internet may not be the proper medium to resolve the issue, but it helps more people become aware of what's going on in the club.

Indeed! Get the word out and encourage people to write!


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