A Little Love, Maybe?

[Jiveslug]

I really am happy about the new changes that the guys worked out for IT. I think that leveling the playing field a little bit can only benefit IT racing in the long run. Altho, I have to ask (half-jokingly), why no love for my Corolla? 2310 lbs in ITB for a car that has 75hp from the factory? :P Sheesh. I want my 100# weight break!!!
:mad1:

Either that or let me run forced induction.......

[Knestis]

I think you'll find that the ITAC used a "bang-for-buck" strategy, where they addressed the cars that were most commonly run in any given class, ran them through the math, and made adjustments accordingly. The Corolla, while not a fully-fledged oddball, is not popular enough that a change was going to have significant impact on class balance - the goal of the whole exercise, as opposed to an attempt to put every make/model in the chase.

K

[JamesB]

Adversely you could ask ITAC to review and see if you cars weight still fits into the 'process'. If the number is way off I would figure they could recommend the change.

[Knestis]

One of them can chime in here but it's my understanding that the stated policy of the ITAC is that they we are not supposed to be able to make requests that individual cars be considered for adjustments - even if we simply ask that they "run it through the system."

The point here is to avoid slipping into anything that even resembles "competition adjustment" mode.

K

[JamesB]

Kirk is correct, I misread the actual statement.

[Jake]

I really am happy about the new changes that the guys worked out for IT. I think that leveling the playing field a little bit can only benefit IT racing in the long run. Altho, I have to ask (half-jokingly), why no love for my Corolla? 2310 lbs in ITB for a car that has 75hp from the factory? :P Sheesh. I want my 100# weight break!!!
:mad1:

Either that or let me run forced induction.......
[/b]

Hey you can take mine! I can't get down to weight now - so my 100lbs break just adds insult to injury. I'm afraid if I complain any more, they'll move the MR2 up to ITS at 1500lbs.

[mlytle]

Hey you can take mine! I can't get down to weight now - so my 100lbs break just adds insult to injury. I'm afraid if I complain any more, they'll move the MR2 up to ITS at 1500lbs.
[/b]

and give it a 5mm sir! :lol:

[Banzai240]

Opps... wrong thread...

[Bill Miller]

One of them can chime in here but it's my understanding that the stated policy of the ITAC is that they we are not supposed to be able to make requests that individual cars be considered for adjustments - even if we simply ask that they "run it through the system."

The point here is to avoid slipping into anything that even resembles "competition adjustment" mode.

K
[/b]


Kirk,

I'm inclined to agree w/ you, but Andy said this.


I have no problem with people writing in and asking us to consider their car for another look if it didn't get any change.[/b]

[dickita15]

While I share the fear of constant request for adjust as they do in the prod world, some ITAC members have said they did not "run through the process" cars that were not common or that they had no data on.

I do not see the harm in someone who has an oddball asking if thier car has been looked at and suppling some data.

that said they must be prepared to hear "we already look at that car"

[Knestis]

Hmm.

This issue REALLY makes me itch. I hope that the ITAC has some system in place to preserve their first assumptions, the process, decisions already made (and not made), and their INTENTIONS for the benefit of future ITACs.

Robin Miller is famously quoted as saying, "We're only one plane crash from having a single open-wheel racing series in the US," and similarly, we're only a trailer-towing incident, a massive MI, and a fall in the shower from losing the entire core of the current ITAC position on adjustments.

We talk about rules creep. What about implementation creep?

1. "Please 'run my car through the system,' because you didn't do it during the great realignment of 2006."

2. "Please revisit the results of the weight-setting process for my car, because you didn't use the right figures, and therefore got the wrong result."

3. "Please check that the weight for my car is correct, because even though it got adjusted, it's ended up at a disadvantage because the formula is skewed against my car."

4. "Please consider changing the race weight of my car despite what the formula says it should weigh, because it can't be competitive at that weight."

5. "Please decrease the race weight of my car becaue nobody I know is beating the (insert car-to-beat here)."

6. "Please decrease the race weight of my car because I just can't seem to be competitive..."

We can already see examples of all of these arguments here, and the realignment has just been approved. The distinction between a "1" and a "4" is quickly lost in arguments, particularly when the motivating factor for any presentation might simply be a desire to get a competitive break.

If "1" is OK, what is the response when someone tosses the ITAC a "2?" Observers may not make any distinction so, if the answer's different, there's squawking. If the answer's the same, then how about a "3?"

Where does the line get drawn (he asks, showing his bias that there SHOULD in fact be one)?

K

[Jiveslug]

I just made this post as a tongue-in-cheek kind of thing. Ill probably hit up the ITAC to take a look, but I wont be all torn up if it doesnt pan out. Basically, I want to make the request in a fashion that simply asks, "Please take a look and make a change if deemed appropriate." I dont want the ITAC (or anyone else) to think that I am seeking a competiton adjustment. I just figure it cant hurt to ask. :D

I would like to re-state that I think the new changes that have been made are well done and I thank all of the folks that worked so hard on them.

Regardless of if I hit the track at 2310#s or 2210#s, the Boneyard Special will be a beast. lol.

[Bill Miller]

I want one w/ a body kit like that!!! :023: Almost looks like a Mk I Scirocco!! :119:

[dickita15]

Ryan
i think you should write the letter if for no other reason to give the ITAC to discuss and document exactley what kirk has laid out so well.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hmm.

1. "Please 'run my car through the system,' because you didn't do it during the great realignment of 2006."[/b]

Here is what you might see:

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"
- "Car was passed over in the reset due to lack of interest and information - please write formal proposal to CRB"


2. "Please revisit the results of the weight-setting process for my car, because you didn't use the right figures, and therefore got the wrong result."[/b]

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"
- "The information you have provided does indeed confict with the current information on hand. Tabled for more research"


3. "Please check that the weight for my car is correct, because even though it got adjusted, it's ended up at a disadvantage because the formula is skewed against my car."[/b]

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"


4. "Please consider changing the race weight of my car despite what the formula says it should weigh, because it can't be competitive at that weight."[/b]

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"


5. "Please decrease the race weight of my car becaue nobody I know is beating the (insert car-to-beat here)."[/b]

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"


6. "Please decrease the race weight of my car because I just can't seem to be competitive..."[/b]

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"


We can already see examples of all of these arguments here, and the realignment has just been approved. The distinction between a "1" and a "4" is quickly lost in arguments, particularly when the motivating factor for any presentation might simply be a desire to get a competitive break.

If "1" is OK, what is the response when someone tosses the ITAC a "2?" Observers may not make any distinction so, if the answer's different, there's squawking. If the answer's the same, then how about a "3?"

Where does the line get drawn (he asks, showing his bias that there SHOULD in fact be one)?

K [/b]

I fully expect all the 3-6's to be put to bed. Those are comp adjustments and not what the reset was all about. 1 and 2 are either demand driven where more info will be needed or an error that should be corrected. In either case, it is VERY possible that you get a - "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters".

AB

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I agree that 4-6 should easily be put to bed. In fact, an official statement to the effect that requests like 4-6 will not even be considered, probably wouldn't be a bad idea. To me, No. 3 is a real sticky one. The core of the entire process is based on being able to achieve the 20% or 25% increase in power output, over stock, w/ an IT tune. Mind you, that's a built-to-the-max IT tune. If you just can't get that much out of the car, there needs to be some way to address that.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I agree that 4-6 should easily be put to bed. In fact, an official statement to the effect that requests like 4-6 will not even be considered, probably wouldn't be a bad idea. To me, No. 3 is a real sticky one. The core of the entire process is based on being able to achieve the 20% or 25% increase in power output, over stock, w/ an IT tune. Mind you, that's a built-to-the-max IT tune. If you just can't get that much out of the car, there needs to be some way to address that. [/b]

Bill,

I see that issue as a #2. If written properly with supporting data.



AB

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

I see that issue as a #2. If written properly with supporting data.



AB
[/b]


Yes and no. That's why I said it was sticky. I do see your point though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Requests like 2 & 3 had better come through with a ton of supporting documentation to be given consideration. You can't just tell us we f-ed up, you have to tell us why.

2 & 3 are close to each other - depending on how you phrase them and what you provide.

We have received multiple letters from people who see the class changes as pure comp adjustments - meant to penalize the top cars for their success, development and driver talent.

Fortunately, we have received just as many congratulating the CRB on it's willingness to 'standardise' the process accross the board.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Requests like 2 & 3 had better come through with a ton of supporting documentation to be given consideration. You can't just tell us we f-ed up, you have to tell us why.

2 & 3 are close to each other - depending on how you phrase them and what you provide.

We have received multiple letters from people who see the class changes as pure comp adjustments - meant to penalize the top cars for their success, development and driver talent.

Fortunately, we have received just as many congratulating the CRB on it's willingness to 'standardise' the process accross the board.

AB
[/b]

Andy,

Maybe they could explain how taking weight out of one car penalizes another car. ;)

[Joe Harlan]

You guys need to remember that no system will ever be perfect. Hell with handicap I should be able to kick Tiger Woods but around pebble beach but in reality I never will (that has nothing to do with the handicap and everything to do with my ability) No matter what system that will be come up with there will always but the talent behind the wheel to be dealt with. While the corolla may not look right on paper I don't think it has even been raced recently enough to know how much to change it.

[Knestis]

...and around we go.

The point is that it should not matter what the Corolla - individual examples or collectively - actually does or doesn't do in the results. We keep making noises about using a system based on mechanical aspects of the car, but I keep seeing evidence that we are having difficulty commiting to that first principle; that we keep getting pulled into conversations about what beats what, and where.

Requests to the CRB (formal ones), and informal questions here, tend to be based on our own experiences and observations, and will continue to be. If folks making those inquiries are rewarded for doing so, it contributes to undermining what is supposed to be a system that can't evolve into competition adjustments (bleah).

K

[Jiveslug]

As I see it, I think the new process and the new specs are completely justified. Why do you think there are so many spec classes out there? People want to run the cars they like and still have a chance, with hard work, to run near the front. There is nothing wrong with that desire. Car people are strange; who knows why one person LOVES one marque but hates another? Using myself as an example, Im very partial to old school and sporting Toyotas but I really am not into Hondas. I like old muscle Oldsmobiles and Buicks, but not Chevys. So, again using me as the example, I personally like the RWD Corollas and the 86-92 Celicas. The Celicas were totally outgunned in the classes they were in, which is one of the reasons I went with the Corolla. I figured the Corolla was till pretty heavy for ITB considering its stock horsepower of 75, but I have heard great things about the 3TC engines in these cars and you can buy/build them for little $$$. It will be a long-shot to be competitive at 2310lbs, but I figured it would be fun regardless. However, there are a lot of people who would be very discouraged if they found that the car they love can be raced wheel to wheel, but has no hope of being near the front. Its just the competitive nature of the human condition. It is MUCH better for IT to have a more uniform process of classification that at least levels the playing field a little bit. Even with the new process, there is still the no guarantee clause because it is waaayyy to difficult to get each car to be “equal.” Parity outside of a “spec” class will never be perfect because there are too many variables to maintain. Thus, the ITAC and CRB figured (correctly, I think) that IT should try to broaden its appeal to lovers of all makes of car by getting as close to equal as possible in a fashion that would not significantly increase the cost of racing in the class. I think the reclassing and weight corrections are the best way to do it, as it does not cost much more (if any) for MOST people to meet the new rules. The benefit? More cars in IT, more fun for us, and a healthy future for the class.
I talked to Andy B. today about my car in particular, and he was most helpful. Everyone believe me when I say that I came out of the conversation very confident in the capabilities of the ITAC to do good for us. There is a process in place and that is where we need to be. We cannot have this hap-hazard way of classing cars because that makes no sense what-so-ever. Why would you class a RWD 189hp BMW in the same class as a 135hp FWD Celica when the Bimmer only has to weigh about 400# more? The Celica has no other advantages than weight, and even then the Toy is still at a significant power-to-weight disadvantage. Does that just mean that the Celica lovers get screwed because not even a minimal amount of effort was made to class their car with other ones in the same performance envelope? What good is that for the SCCA? Now that the ITAC has created a process to keep these kinds of things in check, we SHOULD go back and look at the cars already classed, as Andy has graciously offered, and see if we can fix the ones that are out of the class envelope. Its not about making competition adjustments, its about having four IT classes comprised of cars that are grouped together in a way that MAKES SENSE. Now, we can have the person who finds an old 280ZX on the side of the road take the thing home and get to work, instead of thinking “that would be kind of cool, but it would get it’s a$$ kicked,” and scrap the whole idea.
Incidentally, my Corolla was not looked at because I’m the only person out there who is (or will be, I mean) running one. The ITAC spent their energies on the cars that would impact IT on a larger scale. Now that the bulk of that work is done, they are willing to look at the less popular cars. Its not that I am less important to the IT community, but it WAS more important to IT as a whole for them to address the tons of 1st gen RX7 racers out there. Makes logical sense to me.

Sheesh, now imagine how long this took to type with one broken hand. Heh.
:024:

[Joe Harlan]

As I see it, I think the new process and the new specs are completely justified. Why do you think there are so many spec classes out there? People want to run the cars they like and still have a chance, with hard work, to run near the front. There is nothing wrong with that desire. Car people are strange; who knows why one person LOVES one marque but hates another? Using myself as an example, Im very partial to old school and sporting Toyotas but I really am not into Hondas. I like old muscle Oldsmobiles and Buicks, but not Chevys. So, again using me as the example, I personally like the RWD Corollas and the 86-92 Celicas. The Celicas were totally outgunned in the classes they were in, which is one of the reasons I went with the Corolla. I figured the Corolla was till pretty heavy for ITB considering its stock horsepower of 75, but I have heard great things about the 3TC engines in these cars and you can buy/build them for little $$$. It will be a long-shot to be competitive at 2310lbs, but I figured it would be fun regardless. However, there are a lot of people who would be very discouraged if they found that the car they love can be raced wheel to wheel, but has no hope of being near the front. Its just the competitive nature of the human condition. It is MUCH better for IT to have a more uniform process of classification that at least levels the playing field a little bit. Even with the new process, there is still the no guarantee clause because it is waaayyy to difficult to get each car to be “equal.” Parity outside of a “spec” class will never be perfect because there are too many variables to maintain. Thus, the ITAC and CRB figured (correctly, I think) that IT should try to broaden its appeal to lovers of all makes of car by getting as close to equal as possible in a fashion that would not significantly increase the cost of racing in the class. I think the reclassing and weight corrections are the best way to do it, as it does not cost much more (if any) for MOST people to meet the new rules. The benefit? More cars in IT, more fun for us, and a healthy future for the class.
I talked to Andy B. today about my car in particular, and he was most helpful. Everyone believe me when I say that I came out of the conversation very confident in the capabilities of the ITAC to do good for us. There is a process in place and that is where we need to be. We cannot have this hap-hazard way of classing cars because that makes no sense what-so-ever. Why would you class a RWD 189hp BMW in the same class as a 135hp FWD Celica when the Bimmer only has to weigh about 400# more? The Celica has no other advantages than weight, and even then the Toy is still at a significant power-to-weight disadvantage. Does that just mean that the Celica lovers get screwed because not even a minimal amount of effort was made to class their car with other ones in the same performance envelope? What good is that for the SCCA? Now that the ITAC has created a process to keep these kinds of things in check, we SHOULD go back and look at the cars already classed, as Andy has graciously offered, and see if we can fix the ones that are out of the class envelope. Its not about making competition adjustments, its about having four IT classes comprised of cars that are grouped together in a way that MAKES SENSE. Now, we can have the person who finds an old 280ZX on the side of the road take the thing home and get to work, instead of thinking “that would be kind of cool, but it would get it’s a$$ kicked,” and scrap the whole idea.
Incidentally, my Corolla was not looked at because I’m the only person out there who is (or will be, I mean) running one. The ITAC spent their energies on the cars that would impact IT on a larger scale. Now that the bulk of that work is done, they are willing to look at the less popular cars. Its not that I am less important to the IT community, but it WAS more important to IT as a whole for them to address the tons of 1st gen RX7 racers out there. Makes logical sense to me.

Sheesh, now imagine how long this took to type with one broken hand. Heh.
:024:
[/b]

Ryan, It's funny to me that the corolla isn't raced more. I always have thought it would be a great car in ITB. a 75hp 1800cc hemi head engine is likely to make some decent gains with all the IT mods. It's been awhile since I have been into one but if I recall correctly they had a very very restrictive exhaust from the factory and most of them had junk for carbs. SO those 2 things plus getting to max compression should wake that little hot rod right up.

[Jiveslug]

Joe, you are absolutely correct kind sir. The problem with the 3TC Corolla is indeed the stock carb and exhaust. The research I have done makes me think that I could get more than the standard 25% increase in IT trim. These cars were horribly choked down by the smog gear. Even so, lets say the car produces 50% more power, I think I am still 100-150# too heavy according to the new process. I did find the 80 Crorlla SR-5 has a curb weight of 2187lbs. Its currently specified in ITB at 2310. Im gonna have to run lead to get it legal. Still, no matter what happens with the weight issue, Im going to love running it. :D

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, you are absolutely correct kind sir. The problem with the 3TC Corolla is indeed the stock carb and exhaust. The research I have done makes me think that I could get more than the standard 25% increase in IT trim. These cars were horribly choked down by the smog gear. Even so, lets say the car produces 50% more power, I think I am still 100-150# too heavy according to the new process. I did find the 80 Crorlla SR-5 has a curb weight of 2187lbs. Its currently specified in ITB at 2310. Im gonna have to run lead to get it legal. Still, no matter what happens with the weight issue, Im going to love running it. :D
[/b]
remember curb weight has nothing to do with the process. :018: :lol: