Problems with new restrictor for E36 BMW 325

[its325]

A question for anyone out there unfortunate enough to be running an E36 BMW 325 in ITS: Has anyone had this problem - now that we are forced to use the Funky Horn air restrictor, our old software can not adjust for the reduced airflow ad causes a fuel-air mixture problem, the plugs run hot and actualy can melt. This happened to me at the last race, causing a DNF. This is a potrentially very BIG problem as I am not sure how many of us realize that we need to recalibrate our software. Im glad the plug let go first, beasts spending another 8K on a motor.

SO now that we have been reverse engineered and forced into mid-pack range by virtue of the car's success, now we need to spend additional $$ at the dyno, or payup for Motec so we can attempt to be competitive. Or we can run next year in IT-R!!! WHat fun!!! Ill love dixing it up with ex-DTM cars! Yeah that'll really attract a lot of more racers. Juast what SCCA needs, another useless class with 3 drivers in it! Hey at least we can all walk home with a trophy guys!!!! Yahoo!!! Ok sorry for the rant, but seems like the fun is over unless we can afford Motec or paying up for an E-46 chassis, before the ITRC geek squad comes after those cars, which I am sure will be anytime now.

SO, to the point - we lost our chip guy - the guy that apparently did ALL the chips for the who's who of E-36 ITS cars back in the day when they were legal and fun - Bimmerworld/Stickley etc. Anyway, anyone out there have any ideas, suggestions, thoughts...Aside from throwing in the towel and racing her in BMW club racing?

Frustated,............ :bash_1_:

[Doc Bro]

It's summer rerun season...the new shows start in the fall......


R

[Greg Amy]

IN BEFORE THE LOCK!

Seriously, dude, the Search function is your best friend. This is a sore subject here...

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7975 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7975)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=8231 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8231)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=8055 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8055)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7669 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7669)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7761 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7761)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7313 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7313)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7348 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7348)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7374 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7374)

[JeffYoung]

Wow, you managed to insult about 80% of the members of this board in your very FIRST post. Nice job.

While I disagree with just about everything you said, I would note that Taylor Robertson (red BMW 325) and Carlos Garcia (blue/silver/black one) are both running in the SEDiv and finishing races. You might want to check with them on your issue but it certainly sounds it is something specific to your car and not the BW chip. I'm pretty sure Taylor does not run MOTEC, but I can't say for certain.

Who are you and where are you by the way?

[lateapex911]

SO now that we have been reverse engineered and forced into mid-pack range by virtue of the car's success,

[/b]
Uh, no, not mid pack, and not because of your 'success'. Put a week aside for the reading of threads, but you'll discover that the car wasn't classed properly to start. You'll also discover the ITAC doesn't like the SIR either. And you might even read about DJ running fine at Watkins Glen, or John Norris doing well in California, with no reports of melting components. IF you had read, you might have sent them a PM to enquire as to the methods.


....now we need to spend additional $$ at the dyno, or payup for Motec so we can attempt to be competitive. Or we can run next year in IT-R!!! WHat fun!!! Ill love dixing it up with ex-DTM cars!
[/b]

Ex DTM cars?? You're trying to be cute I hope.....but the point is completely lost.


Yeah that'll really attract a lot of more racers. Juast what SCCA needs, another useless class with 3 drivers in it! Hey at least we can all walk home with a trophy guys!!!! Yahoo!!! [/b]

Again, open your ears before your mouth....there is a TON of commentary out on the ITR concept. New IT classes don't come around unless there is a REAL need. The CRB and the BoD run a tight rein on all things IT. Now, if you'd bothered to read a bit, you'd know that more than any other IT item that has come up in the past 5 or 10 years, THIS item (ITR) has had the highest approval rating, by far, of any. The ONLY negative comments we have gotten have been from known chronic malcontents, OR people who essentially said "I don't like it because it doesn't serve me the way I want". Those comments are outnumbered by an easy 10 to 1.


....(discussing the E46): before the ITRC geek squad comes after those cars, which I am sure will be anytime now. [/b]

Well you're talikng to an official "geeksquad" guy......I even have a black helicopter shirt to prove it. But the E46 isn't in any form of discussion for any future "Coming after"...sorry.




SO, to the point - we lost our chip guy - the guy that apparently did ALL the chips for the who's who of E-36 ITS cars back in the day when they were legal and fun - Bimmerworld/Stickley etc. Anyway, anyone out there have any ideas, suggestions, thoughts...Aside from throwing in the towel and racing her in BMW club racing?

Frustated,............ :bash_1_:
[/b]

Search here....we have been trying to post ALL relevent information as openly as possible. I personally took days off from work($$), traveled hours ($$) and attended SIR fitting and dyno sessions to help broadcast info to ease the transition.

Take the time and avail yourself of the knowledge.

Then you can whine and bitch.....

[Knestis]

Just read the avatar, bay-bee! Whee!
K

[RSTPerformance]

Just read the avatar, bay-bee! Whee!
K
[/b]

lol

[its325]

Thanks Mr. Amy and Late APex guy. Will look at somes of these threads. I dont know those guys you mentioned - new to SCCA. Im in midwest FYI to who ever inquired about that.

As for ITR idea - wow , sorry if i insulted anybody! if people like it that's great, doesnt seem to me like classifying a BMW with a car liek a Boxter or some other V8 is going to result in good races, but before everyone jumps on my head about that, it is merely an opinion, and not a well informed one. I chose IT because i thought the regs would allow me to run in a relatively low cost environment. Now it seems I may have to run the car with big tires and bigger wheels, etc which = bigger dollars, so that is why for one, I dont really like the concept. Thanskl for the help tp those of you who offered it.

[JeffYoung]

ITR will not be cheap, but then again, ITS is no longer cheap (to run up front).

There are BMWs in ITB and ITA and I imagine you can run a 320i or a 325e for far less than
an ITR 330i or an ITS 325is.

[Ron Earp]

Thanks Mr. Amy and Late APex guy. Will look at somes of these threads. I dont know those guys you mentioned - new to SCCA. Im in midwest FYI to who ever inquired about that.

[/b]

Sorry, you just happened to post in a serious snake pit - that is, bringing up the 325i. Cheap it is not. To build a front running ITS, or ITR car, you'll be spending fairly big bucks as Jeff mentioned.

After you read a bit I think you'll agree that top build 325i's are able to take on top build Boxsters and V8s. But the key word there is top build. Buddy up with some local racers and learn what it takes to run upfront. IT is relatively low-cost, but there is that word "relatively". I don't think many on the board would argue that a top prepped 325 will run $20k to $40k, you can spend it all at once and buy a car, or trickle it in over time.

Ron

[Fastfred92]

I don't think many on the board would argue that a top prepped 325 will run $20k to $40k,[/b]

$20K ???? That is a deal! :P

[RickyBobby]

Ok sorry for the rant, but seems like the fun is over unless we can afford Motec or paying up for an E-46 chassis, before the ITRC geek squad comes after those cars, which I am sure will be anytime now.

[/b]

This is most definitely not the way to win friends on this website. You got off on the wrong foot with the above phrase. To be loved on this site you need to bash the E36. Do that and you will be welcomed with open arms.

:035:

Ricky

[Doc Bro]

This is most definitely not the way to win friends on this website. You got off on the wrong foot with the above phrase. To be loved on this site you need to bash the E36. Do that and you will be welcomed with open arms.

:035:

Ricky
[/b]



Why go there Ricky....or is it (P)Ricky?

R

[RickyBobby]

Why go there Ricky....or is it (P)Ricky?

R
[/b]

Ol’ Ricky just calls them as he see’s them.

Personally, I never liked the SIR and believe those good old boys drivin’ those fancy Yurrupean cars got screwed. If I had my way I would have had the E36 pull some type of trailer or sled. Now that would have been fair.

Remember, if you ain’t first, you’re last!

Ricky

[dj10]

Thanks Mr. Amy and Late APex guy. Will look at somes of these threads. I dont know those guys you mentioned - new to SCCA. Im in midwest FYI to who ever inquired about that.

As for ITR idea - wow , sorry if i insulted anybody! if people like it that's great, doesnt seem to me like classifying a BMW with a car liek a Boxter or some other V8 is going to result in good races, but before everyone jumps on my head about that, it is merely an opinion, and not a well informed one. I chose IT because i thought the regs would allow me to run in a relatively low cost environment. Now it seems I may have to run the car with big tires and bigger wheels, etc which = bigger dollars, so that is why for one, I dont really like the concept. Thanskl for the help tp those of you who offered it.

[/b]



Well, this is a much better attitude. Thank you 325. I know for a fact that the SIR isn't the cause of your plugs melting. My 325 runs the same with or without the SIR, except it lowers the hp and torque. I'm going to suggest that the BMW's are allowed to run with ITS for 1 more year, with the SIR, if they choose. If they don't want to they can run ITR. If you want to pm me, I'll try and help you with the engine problem. Keep in mind I'll be asking a few questions. 1. Who's working on your engine? A pro? :D

[JeffYoung]

Dan, the plan right now is for a dual classification. I'll keep you posted as I learn more. For the foreseeable
future, it looks like you guys can run the 325is in ITS restricted or R unrestricted at 2750.

Ricky Bobby though, he's got to run over on the figure 8 track with the beater station wagons. Yeaahhhhhhhhhhhhh boyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

[lateapex911]

Current recommendation from the ITAC to the CRB (and I think they are pro on it) is that all cars that are currently in ITS and recommended for ITR will remain in ITS,as well as being listed at the new weight and wheel allowance in ITR.

Your choice.

Hows that for friendly and cooperative?? ;)

[Knestis]

This is most definitely not the way to win friends on this website. You got off on the wrong foot with the above phrase. To be loved on this site you need to bash the E36. Do that and you will be welcomed with open arms.

:035:

Ricky
[/b]

...or create a brand spankin' new fakey anonymous login, and use your first posts to drop loads of crap all over the place. Bad troll - no Troll Chow for you! :P

K

[lateapex911]

...or create a brand spankin' new fakey anonymous login, and use your first posts to drop loads of crap all over the place. Bad troll - no Troll Chow for you! :P

K
[/b]


But do I get some for ignoring the troll?? For once?? ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't even see the trolls anymore.

:015:

[Bill Miller]

Just read the avatar, bay-bee! Whee!
K[/b]
Notice that I haven't participated in this thread at all! :happy204: :smilie_pokal: :015:




Current recommendation from the ITAC to the CRB (and I think they are pro on it) is that all cars that are currently in ITS and recommended for ITR will remain in ITS,as well as being listed at the new weight and wheel allowance in ITR.

Your choice.

Hows that for friendly and cooperative?? ;)
[/b]


Jake,

Is there a time limit on this dual classification (1 year? 2 years ???)

[Knestis]

Notice that I haven't participated in this thread at all! :happy204: :smilie_pokal: :015:
Jake,

Is there a time limit on this dual classification (1 year? 2 years ???)
[/b]

<crystalballagain>Not only will there be no time limit on individual dual classifications, this new policy will be with us for the next 25 years of IT</crystalballagain>

Again - ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to solve an immediate customer relations problem, without any real examiniation of possible unintended consequences. Some people will love it but the question is whether it is good for the long-term health of the category. Of course, I may just not understand how carefully this policy was examined before it was tacked onto the ITR proposal.

Kirk (munching happily on Mature Formula Troll Chow)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Again - ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to solve an immediate customer relations problem, without any real examiniation of possible unintended consequences. Some people will love it but the question is whether it is good for the long-term health of the category. Of course, I may just not understand how carefully this policy was examined before it was tacked onto the ITR proposal.

Kirk (munching happily on Mature Formula Troll Chow) [/b]

Not true at all Kirk. The ITAC moved from &#39;just ITR&#39;, to dual classification with a sunset (maybe 1 or 2 years), then to a true dual classification after much debate.

Club racing participation is down (from what we have been told), and while ITR has the potential to bring new blood into the fold, as well as have a home for E36 drivers who told the SCCA to pound sand with their move to other clubs, ANY dual classification has the potential to increase short term revenue and grease the skids for long term increases.

For example: ITA is probably seeing the most growth year over year. Why? SM drivers are either running in two groups or letting someone else drive their car in ITA while they bang around in SM. Up here in the Northeast, a &#39;limited prep&#39; SM is classed in SSM (don&#39;t ask). That single car could run in 3 run groups; SSM, SM and ITA - ITE if you wanted to drive in your mirrors all day even.

Getting people involved by just &#39;borrowing&#39; your friends ride during your first year - while he gets to run also - is pretty cool.

A boon for the club I might say. I see no downside to evaluating requests on a case by case - for dual classification. The car that immediately comes to mind is the ITA MR2. Some may want to try in ITB as it seemingly can&#39;t get to it&#39;s new minimum AND it doesn&#39;t make much power in IT trim. Could be a good car at 2450ish.

Let me know why you think it could hurt the long-term health of IT. I must be missing it. I think it helps short and long term growth potential.

[GKR_17]

Current recommendation from the ITAC to the CRB (and I think they are pro on it) is that all cars that are currently in ITS and recommended for ITR will remain in ITS,as well as being listed at the new weight and wheel allowance in ITR.

Your choice.

Hows that for friendly and cooperative?? ;)
[/b]

Many thanks. It&#39;s encouraging to know that the work adding the SIR (which also included a cooked motor) won&#39;t have to be thrown out at the end of this season (or next).



Again - ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to solve an immediate customer relations problem, without any real examiniation of possible unintended consequences. Some people will love it but the question is whether it is good for the long-term health of the category. Of course, I may just not understand how carefully this policy was examined before it was tacked onto the ITR proposal.
[/b]

Other than a few extra lines in the ITCS, what consequences could there be? We&#39;ve already been told that all of the cars in question meet the process in their current condition.

Grafton

[Knestis]

...the question is whether it is good for the long-term health of the category. Of course, I may just not understand how carefully this policy was examined before it was tacked onto the ITR proposal.
[/b]
Kind of sad when it comes down to quoting one&#39;s self but I don&#39;t KNOW that it is bad for the club. I just think it&#39;s a little precipitous to make a change that substantial without a LOT of consideration.

Your SM/ITA example: If that rationale works in that case, how about applying the same thinking to the occasionally-suggested idea of simply listing all IT cars in the Production classes, in their current specifications, where they "fit" competitively? Seriously - if I proposed that, would you support it? Why or why not? We&#39;d have ride-sharing, cross-over opportunities galore, and I&#39;ll bet that revenues from Nationals would go up substantially.

If THAT is OK, how about listing all LP Prod cars in IT, too so we can share some more? Yes or know? Why? What is different?

At some point, fundamental principals of the system get out of whack to accommodate some policy intention that might, in a vacuum, be a completely reasonable thing. Why have classes based on levels of preparation AT ALL? You&#39;ve looked at the NASA PT thing, where you can race a GenII RX7 in one of about 9 classes, right? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Yeah, I look a few steps down the conceptual road in these cases but thought experiments help us understand WHY we are implementing particular changes - or why NOT. What&#39;s reasonable, where dual classing is concerned? May I please have the option of running the Golf in ITC at, say, 2700#? Would that be within the vision coming out of the discussions you describe? Again - why or why not? **

And what potential downsides were identified - and then accepted - during discussion? If there were NONE, then it&#39;s certain that something&#39;s been ignored or missed. That&#39;s the problem with "unanticipated consequences" - they&#39;re not anticipated.

Curmudgeonly yours,

K

** EDIT - and critically, if I ask some future member of the ITAC, after Joest has shopped Andy out from under us, will the answer be the same? Given the freedom and discretion to apply a non-rule like "on a case-by-case basis," what mechanism is in place to help assure that the New Guy doesn&#39;t apply it to further his own personal intentions for the policy, that might be COMPLETELY different than those in place this month with this ITAC and CRB? You can&#39;t put that toothpaste back in the tube.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kind of sad when it comes down to quoting one&#39;s self but I don&#39;t KNOW that it is bad for the club. I just think it&#39;s a little precipitous to make a change that substantial without a LOT of consideration. [/b]

For someone who is against the concept, I have to wonder why you can&#39;t come up with a negative or two...


Your SM/ITA example: If that rationale works in that case, how about applying the same thinking to the occasionally-suggested idea of simply listing all IT cars in the Production classes, in their current specifications, where they "fit" competitively? Seriously - if I proposed that, would you support it? Why or why not? We&#39;d have ride-sharing, cross-over opportunities galore, and I&#39;ll bet that revenues from Nationals would go up substantially.[/b]

Because the core rules are the same. In most cases, a simple ballast and wheel swap is all you have to do. Cross category movement like IT to Prod is not practical. There are manditory things in Prod that are not allowed in IT...so no, I would not support it.


At some point, fundamental principals of the system get out of whack to accommodate some policy intention that might, in a vacuum, be a completely reasonable thing. Why have classes based on levels of preparation AT ALL? You&#39;ve looked at the NASA PT thing, where you can race a GenII RX7 in one of about 9 classes, right? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?[/b]

It&#39;s a good thing for NASA, and part of the reason we are losing entry fees to them. PT is a true run-what-ya-brung class. I don&#39;t like it personally because it is virtually impossible to build a car to the limit of any of those classes. But it attracts drivers because you can build a car how you want it, THEN race it. The SCCA will never be NASA and NASA will never be the SCCA...they are very solid in their own niches, yet I think over the next few years, you will see both of them sliding more toward the &#39;middle&#39; to lure the tweener dollar.


Yeah, I look a few steps down the conceptual road in these cases but thought experiments help us understand WHY we are implementing particular changes - or why NOT. What&#39;s reasonable, where dual classing is concerned? May I please have the option of running the Golf in ITC at, say, 2700#? Would that be within the vision coming out of the discussions you describe? Again - why or why not? **[/b]

Maybe a section needs to be added to the GCR limiting the exposure of the dual classification (DC). This would work just like the PCA&#39;s that caused your first heart-attack. ;) "Thank you for your request, car is currently classified properly". Every request will get consideration, but precious few would actually be viable for a DC.


And what potential downsides were identified - and then accepted - during discussion? If there were NONE, then it&#39;s certain that something&#39;s been ignored or missed. That&#39;s the problem with "unanticipated consequences" - they&#39;re not anticipated.

Curmudgeonly yours,

K[/b]

Why would I feed you my info? :P If you can&#39;t come up with one or two downsides, then why resist your A3&#39;s triple classification? 1625 in ITS, 2000 in ITA, 2350 in ITB.... :D


** EDIT - and critically, if I ask some future member of the ITAC, after Joest has shopped Andy out from under us, will the answer be the same? Given the freedom and discretion to apply a non-rule like "on a case-by-case basis," what mechanism is in place to help assure that the New Guy doesn&#39;t apply it to further his own personal intentions for the policy, that might be COMPLETELY different than those in place this month with this ITAC and CRB? You can&#39;t put that toothpaste back in the tube. [/b]

You could say that about any rule in the GCR.

[Z3_GoCar]

Andy,

What Kirk really fears is the Prod like nature of this. Including the hybrid cars how many classes can a Sprite be in? How about a MGA?? I realize that there&#39;s different motor sizes involved, but why can&#39;t a H-Prod car run in G-Prod? How about a limited prep F-prod Miata, it&#39;s classed in E-prod, could he run this class instead?? I think this path encourages the formation of an old guard similar to what&#39;s found in prod around the spridget/mg guy&#39;s. In reality this is what&#39;s making prod a sick puppy. These cars were hard to find with I was getting my drivers license back in the mid-80&#39;s what&#39;s made them more plentiful today?? I&#39;m sure this all started innocent enough, untill 30 years have gone, and you look back and say what happened to Improved Touring?? It looks like Prod used to, and no one comes out to run it any more. Why??

This is just my take on it, but I&#39;m sure that&#39;s what Kirk the Kermudgeon was thinking.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What makes Production, "Production" is the every-day battle of comp-adjustments and trying to wade through that quagmire.

[Z3_GoCar]

Sure, but if there wasn&#39;t a group that fought for their own self interest spread out across multiple classes, where would the Comp-adjustments come from? I know that the ITAC want to be carfull that PCA&#39;s don&#39;t become comp adjustments, but it&#39;s all too easy when there&#39;s a large group spread across multiple classes of IT to turn this to their desires.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sure, but if there wasn&#39;t a group that fought for their own self interest spread out across multiple classes, where would the Comp-adjustments come from? I know that the ITAC want to be carfull that PCA&#39;s don&#39;t become comp adjustments, but it&#39;s all too easy when there&#39;s a large group spread across multiple classes of IT to turn this to their desires.

[/b]

It&#39;s a philosophy that IT doesn&#39;t support. There is no effort to equalize on-track performance down to the 10th for every car in the ITCS and I hope there never will be. It&#39;s way to difficult and way to political for my blood.

[Knestis]

Andy, I&#39;m NOT worried about you or the current ITAC doing something stupid with the DC (and it&#39;s already got an abbreviation). It&#39;s a policy that we&#39;ll have to live with for a long while, once it&#39;s codified.

The current response to my request to put the Golf in C as well as B (hey, a Jeff Lawton-sized guy and I could share for the weekend without adding ballast, if he ran a little heavy!) is "Thank you for your request, car is currently classified properly," suggesting that the DC will only be applied when there&#39;s a perception that a car is classified IMPROPERLY. Am I with you so far?

Knowing that there&#39;s no "book" in place to tell future ITAC&#39;ers what "properly" or "improperly" are, I could get a completely different answer in two years. I could invoke all of the upsides that you describe here and my request could be found acceptable. Just like folks today argue about the intent behind 10-year-old rules, some day someone will be (quite sensibly) suggesting that the best part about the DC option is that they can decide which class to run based on where they are most likely to be able to win (aka "I want to help C with my entry). Seems silly now but the policy would be in place to enable that point of view.

I WOULD feel better if the parameters for applying the DC were spelled out - with a sunset clause, only in the case of the rollcage diameter minimum formula weight conflict, etc. - but to say that it&#39;s to allow people to share cars opens up a HUGE ball of worms, if that policy becomes a priority over others. You&#39;ve made it clear that, to YOUR way of thinking, it doesn&#39;t trump the existing limitations on Prod/IT cross-polination. Again - what if we have 5 people on the ITAC in a few years who don&#39;t feel that way? Who are sick of trying to gain national status for IT and want a back door to the RubOffs?

Other than the confusion created when people see identical cars running in two classes (ICSCC used to be GREAT for that!) I can&#39;t think of any immediate downsides. I can picture lots of ways that it can go wrong in the future and - I may be the only one in the world on this - I don&#39;t believe that the risk of those unintended consequences is worth the upside. Since I can&#39;t invoke "sharing" as a rational for the Golf DC (and it wouldn&#39;t be hard at ALL to do that - less than 200# of new cage tubes and other ballast), I&#39;m now even more convinced that this policy has been implemented only to satisfy the abused e36 325 constituency. (And, yes - I do think they&#39;ve been dicked around pretty good.) If that&#39;s the case, make the policy honest in its intention, close the barn door, and codify the intent in the ITCS as being a one-time fix for a past mess.

K

[Bill Miller]

Not true at all Kirk. The ITAC moved from &#39;just ITR&#39;, to dual classification with a sunset (maybe 1 or 2 years), then to a true dual classification after much debate.[/b]

Well, it looks like it&#39;s time for another letter. Andy, I can&#39;t even begin to describe my level of disappointment with this. Cars get moved from one class to another almost anually (more than I&#39;d like to see, but if that&#39;s what it takes to fix things, then that&#39;s what it takes), and the discussion of DC (thanks Kirk :023: ) has never been given a second thought.

While I agree w/ Kirk that the E36 crowd got wagged around pretty good (but through no fault of the ITAC, there are others that get to hold the bag on that one, err two), and I could see letting them run in ITS for &#39;07 and maybe &#39;08, there&#39;s no reason to extend it beyond that. Same holds true for any other ITS car that&#39;s moving up to ITR. But please, don&#39;t let this thing go on forever, it&#39;s a can of worms that I don&#39;t think anybody wants to deal with (see Kirk&#39;s comments on the unintended consequences).

I also agree w/ Kirk that this addition to the policy is being done to placate a handful of drivers (mostly the E36 folks, as I don&#39;t think that this would be on the table had they not gotten jerked around w/ the FPR and SIR debacle).

Is this going to be something that&#39;s only for cars that were issued logbooks prior to 1/1/07, or can someone in say &#39;09 build an ITS E36 325is (not picking on the E36, just don&#39;t have the list handy of other ITS cars that are getting bumped up)? I sure hope it&#39;s the former and not the later.

One of the largest consequences of giving these cars permanent DC is that you&#39;ve now opened the door for everybody out there to request DC for there car. "Hey, I want to run my Rabbit GTI in ITC @ its process weight!" Kirk&#39;s car (and all the other A3 VW 2.0 8v ITB cars) is a perfect example. You&#39;ve already got essentially the same car (w/ different body work and a slightly different chassis) running in ITC (the New Beetle), why shouldn&#39;t his car be classed in ITC at its process weight? You could say that for almost any car listed in the ITCS.

And please, don&#39;t use the SM/SSM abortion as an example. There&#39;s absolutely no reason at all for SSM to exist, other than to allow a limited group of people the opportunity to run two races a weekend.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Unless the ITAC is flying to their super-secret bunker in AZ to further penalize the persecuted - and the plane dissapears - I just don&#39;t see it as a &#39;new regime wakes up one morning and has to pick up the pieces and move forward (or backward)&#39; situation. Our newest member, Jake Gulick, did a great job listening, learning and understanding where we were and now are before he jumped in. Simple really.

No, I am not with you about. Given the nature of the process, the majority of cars can &#39;fit&#39;. Some can&#39;t. Those cars aren&#39;t "misclassed". They are tweeners. They are cars that may be listed too light to be practical in a higher class. A DC may be a good thing.

A &#39;Book"? The process is most creatinly documented at it&#39;s core, including the subjective &#39;adders&#39;. The application of those adders in each individual situation is grey for older cars but for cars moved, changed or especially ITR, everything is documented for reference of the CRB or the ITAC. I frequently help people understand where their weight comes from (or more often, why OTHER cars weigh what they weigh).

The DC is not to allow people to share cars. It&#39;s a benefit, not the driving force. More choices for drivers and an attractive category to non-SCCA members is what drives this thought process.

Your &#39;what if the next 5 ITAC guys think different&#39; is a red herring IMHO. You could use that arguement for any change at any time.

What are your examples of how it could &#39;go wrong in the end&#39;?

This policy HAS NOT been put into effect to satisfy the E36 guys. Get that out of your head. SOme IATC members wanted an immediate swapover, some wanted a sunset on a DC, and then discussion was led by a CRB member on the pros and cons to DC&#39;s in general. And here we are. I still haven&#39;t heard a solid reason NOT to do it.

On edit - just saw Bill&#39;s post. Please detail the unintended conciquences so that we can address them. Not just the concept of the UC, but actual concerns. I have already addressed the potential for a flurry of requests that could come in (I doubt it that would happen) would be handled just like PCA&#39;s have been handled.

BTW: I coined "DC"! And now "UC"!

*******Let&#39;s start a new thread********** See RULES section.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...t=0&#entry88002 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8687&pid=88002&st=0&#entry88002)

[pgipson]

Unless the ITAC is flying to their super-secret bunker in AZ [/b]

Why do all the conspiracy theorists have to come here? They are only welcome if they are towing IT race cars. We need more participation.

[Knestis]

What are these "conspiracy theorists" of which you speak? Andy - do you have your foil hat on?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why do all the conspiracy theorists have to come here? They are only welcome if they are towing IT race cars. We need more participation. [/b]

:D

[Ron Earp]

What are these "conspiracy theorists" of which you speak?
[/b]


We&#39;ve sort of got a rule over on my forum about "conspiracy theorists" or Trolls.

If your first posts upon joining a forum just happen to be on the most contraversal subjects on the forum, then you&#39;ve generally got an agenda to push. Haven&#39;t seen it fail yet.

R

[Knestis]

I&#39;m cool then.

My first posts here were, "What are the biggest rimz I can fit on my car?," "How should I double clutch when I upshift?," and "Where is the canyon carving action in VA?"

K

[Ron Earp]

My first posts here were, "What are the biggest rimz I can fit on my car?," "How should I double clutch when I upshift?," and "Where is the canyon carving action in VA?"

K
[/b]

Yeah, I don&#39;t think you&#39;re hitting any nerves with threads like those! Now, if you were to post something like "Why can&#39;t I run up front anymore in my 80% prep XYZ ?", then you&#39;d be right on the money.

Never understood that SSM stuff Bill cites either.

[Andy Bettencourt]

SSM is a Regional only SM class. They splintered off when SCCA accepted SM into the GCR as a class and added some allowances for intake, exhaust and tires. SSM stays real true to the original concept as developed before it was an SCCA class with the primary goal to keep close fair racing cost effective.



SSM is larger in NER than SM.



AB

[Ron Earp]

Explained that way I get it. Sort of like Max5 in England - no allowances for changes. Only thing I think I&#39;ve learned about SCCA Spec classes is when they are said to be "Spec Classes", they are anything but.

R

[Bill Miller]

SSM is a Regional only SM class. They splintered off when SCCA accepted SM into the GCR as a class and added some allowances for intake, exhaust and tires. SSM stays real true to the original concept as developed before it was an SCCA class with the primary goal to keep close fair racing cost effective.



SSM is larger in NER than SM.



AB
[/b]


Andy,

I know that several people think that the SCCA dorked-up SM when they codified it. I also know that most Regions have a policy of &#39;get enough cars together to form a class, and we&#39;ll give it to you&#39;. But honestly, is there really a need for it, beyond generating more revenue for the Regions? I&#39;ve seen cars w/ SM/SSM class designations on them.

Oh, and I forget what thread it was in, but someone said that one benefit of dual classification was to allow two people to race one car. The only thing I can say on that one, is don&#39;t do it. With rare exception, it just doesn&#39;t work. Evenutally someone will feel that they&#39;re contributing more to the car/effort than the other person. Not to mention the issue of having one person have an incident (mechanical or otherwise) before the other person gets to race. They&#39;ve already been out for qualifying, so they&#39;ve turned a wheel, so no refund on the entry fee. All in all, sharing a car is a bad idea. I saw it come between two very good friends.

[AntonioGG]

SSM stays real true to the original concept as developed before it was an SCCA class....
AB
[/b]

Clarify that this was in the Northeast. In SOWDIV were SM was born (simultaneously? first?) we had open intakes on the 1.6 cars (at the same weight split as NEDIV), we had "adjustable AFM" rules (hmm...now adopted nationally, but not initially), could remove passenger side glass (ditto).

I think the main thing is SSM did not want to have to deal with an intake and exhaust of the month, and as a side benefit they figured the Mazdacomp exhaust (at ~$180 stainless steel) and stock intake would limit the power advantage of a pro motor. The other problem they had was more cars than they could fit in one session at some tracks. SSM was seen as a win-win.

[Knestis]

... The other problem they had was more cars than they could fit in one session at some tracks. SSM was seen as a win-win.
[/b]

This is a great example of the kind of policy oddness that I think we should really try to avoid.

** On the one hand, too-full grids get cited as a rationale for having SM and SSM

** On the other, the opportunity to enter one car in both classes is equally a rationale for having SM and SSM

We get situations like this when we make policy decisions based on the short-term, or on vocal insistence of minority points of view. Or - most often - based on what otherwise seems like a logical reason, when viewed through a soda straw.

But, yeah - that conversation has goe to a different strand...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kirk,

The birth of SSM in the NE has NOTHING to do with any of those issues. They are a by-product of two very popular classes.

Antonio - since SSM doesn&#39;t exsist anywhere else, it must have been born in the NE... :)

[Ron Earp]

I think the main thing is SSM did not want to have to deal with an intake and exhaust of the month, SSM was seen as a win-win.
[/b]

It is too bad that SSM didn&#39;t become the modern "SM" today. It&#39;d definitely have saved money for competitors and possibly made a much better class. If SSM could have avoided the "clutch of the month" issues, as well as "cam of the month", and "engine builder of the month", etc. it&#39;d have be awesome.

[JeffYoung]

Here&#39;s what is amazing to me. In the three years I&#39;ve been racing (since 2003), I&#39;ve seen SM go from clearly being the cheapest, best place to race to a complete farked up mess. Maybe it is turning out to be teh flavor of the day after all. Formula Jr. anyone?

[Knestis]

The birth of SSM in the NE has NOTHING to do with any of those issues. ...
[/b]
Sure it does, as long as people are suggesting that a benefit of the DC option is multiple entries in the same car AND folks are doing that with SS/SSM.

If everyone agreed with you that this is NOT an intended benefit arising from DC implementation and quit trotting it out as one, I&#39;d totally agree with you but I don&#39;t see that happening - see Evan&#39;s and Jason&#39;s enthusiasm back in the other thread. There are a LOT of folks out there, I&#39;m betting, who will latch onto that as the great rationale for double-listing and, from their "tactical" point of view, I can see how that&#39;s reasonable.

Is that what YOU intend? Is that what the ITAC and CRB intend?

If so, my worries are WELL FOUNDED from the get-go. If not, you got some &#39;spaining to do to the membership &#39;cause they&#39;re going to grab that bait and run with it - dragging us toward the unintended expansion of DCs to other classes in IT, to other categories, and even to the extreme of the LP/IT crossover idea. Incrementalism moves plates in the earth&#39;s crust so it can sure as heck move our rules to places we never intended them to go.

If that gun stays in the holster, nobody can get shot. If you draw it, we are likely to lose control of it.



It is too bad that SSM didn&#39;t become the modern "SM" today. It&#39;d definitely have saved money for competitors and possibly made a much better class. If SSM could have avoided the "clutch of the month" issues, as well as "cam of the month", and "engine builder of the month", etc. it&#39;d have be awesome.
[/b]

...and you&#39;d think that we could LEARN from that mistake.

It&#39;s not like the IT rules that are "old," when it only requires three years of institutional memory to understand what went wrong. (Of course, some stakeholders LOVE the current situation and it&#39;s completely to be expected that they would steer the policy toward their intentions.)

Now, would SSM cars be any cheaper in reality, if someone wanted to spend pointy-end SM money on one? Probably not but the gains that might be purchased would arguably be lower.

Regardless, it&#39;s those incremental allowances at it again. (See also, "Dual Classification")

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sorry Kirk, the birth or SSM didn&#39;t have anything to do with what we are talking about here. You couldn&#39;t be more wrong. SSM was created in complete opposition to the few rules that SCCA made &#39;open&#39; when they adopted SM. In fact, the two camps were decidedly polar.

Here in NER, there was resistance from the Road Racing Board about adding a Regional class where there was already a recognized class. For the first two years, SSM and SM ran in the same run group so not only was &#39;multiple entries&#39; not a thought, it wasn&#39;t even possible.

Both groups grew so much that we had to split them up (excess of 25 in BOTH SSM and SM on 1.6 mile tracks). It wasn&#39;t until THIS YEAR that the proliferation of double (and even triple when you include ITA) entries have manifested themselves.

&#39;Unintended expansion&#39; is the worry I have finnally grabbed from your posts. Like I said at the very beginning, the same fear was voiced when PCA&#39;s came out...and we are holding strong there.

[Knestis]

For the sake of the eternal IT.com record, I was talking about policy rationale after the fact, rather than the birth of SSM. I actually know the hisory of the class but didn&#39;t worry about it since the point is that, even after all of the policy shifts that you describe, dual entry opportunities in SM/SSM are now being suggested as an example of why having two classes to enter with one car is a good idea - post hoc.

But whatever. I&#39;ve used up all my bullets, and even reloaded and shot a couple of them twice. I know that the ITAC has kept the lid on the PCA kettle but it&#39;s still early days but again, my concerns aren&#39;t with the current administration.

I hope that I&#39;m wrong but, if this goes sideways in a few years and becomes a big pain in the butt, I am SO going to show up at your door and make you buy the beer while find 27 different, long-winded ways to say, "told you so."

:birra:

K

[dickita15]

I do not believe that car sharing or double dipping is a good reason for DCs but I know it will happen and it is not a reason to not allow DCs. The question to me is would there be a down side to tweeners being Dced.

What will be interesting in the SM world is if with the class being national will there be less big money cars in regionals? Also while you can spend big money to build an SM, I think they are still cheap to race not counting body repairs.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kirk - HOW CAN IT GO SIDEWAYS?

I have no problem with somebody telling me that they &#39;told me so&#39; but only if they could actually tell me how we are getting to the problem instead of just giving me the final address... :D



AB

[Knestis]

ANDY - I DON&#39;T KNOW FOR SURE.

...but that&#39;s the inherent problem and difference in our approaches: I&#39;m not currently willing to believe that the small upside is worth the inherent risk because I can easily picture how it might be repurposed, based on observations of IT culture over the last 20 years. The CRB and ITAC are willing to completely ignore the chance that it will rage out of control some day, to realize the immediate gains that they&#39;ve identified, and dismiss silly ideas like cross-listing LP and IT cars because it "can&#39;t ever happen."

Either way, i can&#39;t help you out at this point I&#39;m afraid.

"So - do you feel lucky?"

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kirk,



You act like the world could colapse, yet you can&#39;t tell me how. You say a small upside and a huge risk but I don&#39;t by it. I just don&#39;t subscribe to that kind of thinking. I don&#39;t pretend to think that NOTHING can go wrong, it&#39;s just that given the current policies, I can&#39;t foresee anything going wrong. And if something did, I can&#39;t foresee it being anything to write home about.

If this is the kind of attitude we need to take to keep IT out of trouble, we should have frozen the rules 20 years ago - and we know that isn&#39;t the right thing to do - times change, cars change, the class needs to be dynamic - to a point, not static.

Do I feel lucky? Nope. I feel like I know the situation well enough so that it won&#39;t go bad.

Oh, and if in 20 years everyting was cross-classed and intertwined to make it easy to move all over the GCR - why would that be a bad thing?

[Greg Amy]

Andy,

With the benefit of 20 years of hindsight, I can understand Kirk&#39;s concerns. Everyone&#39;s intentions are usually pure, but once one reliquishes control of the current situation it&#39;s usually bastardized to fit the new agenda. We&#39;ve seen it time, after time, after time, after time again.


I can&#39;t foresee anything going wrong...[/b]

That&#39;s the funny (ironic) part: no one ever does. Since intentions are pure, it&#39;s inevitable that rose-colored blinders get slid on the nose. No one can POSSIBLY consider all alternatives, which is why it&#39;s so damn hard to be a rulesmaker. You make something idiot-proof, and someone goes off and builds a new idiot...

As an aside, the one part about DC that really chaps my hide, for example, is that here in NE we have an extra race group on Regional weekends simply because of the dual-classed Spec Miatas. I mean, how many classes do we need for Miatas to compete in, for Kee-rist&#39;s sake? How many tech stickers do I issue each race that read "SM/SSM" or "SM/ITA" "SSM/ITA" or "SM/SSM/ITA"? How many groups will we have to add - at the expense of all other competitors that don&#39;t drive Miatas/BMWs/other DC cars - until we say "enough"? &#39;Cause if this DC idea starts adding in so many cars such that I&#39;m getting 30 minutes of track time each weekend, I&#39;m gonna find another hobby...

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hear you guys in the fundamental but in the practical you haven&#39;t brought anything to the table.

As far as the anti-Miata agenda goes - suck it up. If the car counts come, they come. If 25 NX2000/SE-R&#39;s showed up and wanted to call it Spec SR20, so be it. Regionally, car counts talk. If someone is willing to pay the entry fees, they have just as much right to the track.

If all 50 Miata&#39; were in SM, we would have to send the 12 slowest of them home (which will never happen in NER) - or off to another run group in a consolation race - and THAT would effectively be the SAME thing as two 25 car classes.

Besides - all those SM crossovers are bolstering your ITA Championship payout... :)

[Knestis]

... If this is the kind of attitude we need to take to keep IT out of trouble, we should have frozen the rules 20 years ago - and we know that isn&#39;t the right thing to do - times change, cars change, the class needs to be dynamic - to a point, not static.[/b]
Now, in addition to being an old fart, I&#39;m an obstructionist? When people here and elsewhere were freaking out because I and a couple others wanted to completely mess things up so much a short few years ago? ITA has become de facto IT2 (which was going to completely fark up ITA, according to legions of CRX owners) and Kirk and his e-radicals got all kinds of grief because we championed a formulaic approach to setting minimum weights. I believe the rallying quote right here in these forums was, "Formulas will NEVER WORK!"

You forget your history, Andy which is kind of a disappointment.


Oh, and if in 20 years everyting was cross-classed and intertwined to make it easy to move all over the GCR - why would that be a bad thing?[/b]
That&#39;s okay, I guess - if it&#39;s what everyone wants.

Uncle.

Now - and I am absolutely serious about this, having sucked it up and accepted yet another aspect of the new way of thinking - if it&#39;s good enough for SSM/SM/ITA multiple entries, I absolutely DO want the opportunity to make bank renting my spare seat time out, too. Please. I can set up a MkIII Golf with a 200# hot-swapable ballast kit in an afternoon, and make the change in minutes between sessions. Heck, I could save a gazillion hours of labor by not stripping the undercoating off of the next one in the first place and I don&#39;t even have to buy new wheels! I may need to use larger tubing on the next shell&#39;s rollcage but that won&#39;t be a problem.

So my request will be forthcoming just as soon as the new plan is in the books. I&#39;ll also petition NCR to make sure that ITB and ITC are in different run groups, to make it possible for me to get a new racer on the track in my car and maximize their revenues. I recognize that there might be some obstructionists in charge there but we&#39;ll wear them down.

And if your first reaction is to say NO to this, don&#39;t you dare unless you can explain to me why. YOU convinced ME that it is a good idea. Either the rationale presented here...


More options for certain cars, increased multiple run group options, easier entry into Club Racing, a potential solution for tweeners, increased revenue for the club, etc.[/b]

...is valid or it is not. I confess that I don&#39;t yet know what the protest will look like exactly, but there will be one if the rule as applied to my request isn&#39;t consistent with other DC-listed models and the language that ends up in the GCR/ITCS. The bonus - I think that&#39;s what it was called when Jake first mentioned it? - cannot fairly be just for "certain cars," if proposals for "other cars" fall into the parameters defined by DC-approved models.

Kirk (who gets a little sea sick rolling over for stuff like this but is willing to do what it takes to not be IT&#39;s Chicken Little)

[lateapex911]

Seems to me it&#39;s all about drawing a line, and creating a policy that is institutionalized.

One thing about a move like this, is that any ITAC can do it at any time. If this ITAC says OK to DC for a certain subset of cars that meet certain parameters, (Like only DC-ing cars that move up to new classes), thats great, but future ITACs don&#39;t have to respect that.

Further, if this ITAC says no DC, now or ever, future ITACs can choose to ignore thatand do as they see fit.

I DO, I really DO, see how one thing leads to another, but.....just because it isn&#39;t done now is no guarantee to won&#39;t be in the future. As a matter of fact, it is conceivable that it could be done now, and be done right, and future ITACs won&#39;t feel the need to change it...whereas if it hadn&#39;t been done they might decide to do it, but go much further. Point is that there is no guarantee.....

I appreciate Kirks comments...he has a very long institutional memory (esp considering his actual age). I&#39;ve spoken with him and he knows a tremendous amount about SCCA policy history. Thats important info. We can guide our future from lessons learned in the past.

My questioning of this concept has been to challenge the critics to dig deep in their collective reasoning and come up with predictions and possible scenarios. I fully agree that an inability to come up with a scenario is NOT the same as saying there arenone and that there is nothing wrong with the concept. But by the same token I think it&#39;s important to really explore the options.

I thank those who have comments....it&#39;s a good discussion and the decision will be better for it.

Thinking out loud, what if verbage describing the conditions and requirements for a car to be DC&#39;ed were part of the IT philosophy statemnt and added to the GCR??
(Yes, I know that future boards can strike or chage that, but it does create a much larger hurdle)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Now, in addition to being an old fart, I&#39;m an obstructionist? When people here and elsewhere were freaking out because I and a couple others wanted to completely mess things up so much a short few years ago? ITA has become de facto IT2 (which was going to completely fark up ITA, according to legions of CRX owners) and Kirk and his e-radicals got all kinds of grief because we championed a formulaic approach to setting minimum weights. I believe the rallying quote right here in these forums was, "Formulas will NEVER WORK!"

You forget your history, Andy which is kind of a disappointment.[/b]

No way. IT2 excluded RWD. You exclude 3 of the most popular cars in ITA today, the 240SX, the Miata and the CRX. THAT is why I didn&#39;t buy into it. Just because the misclassed 4cyl S cars went to ITA means nothing. And I still submit a hard-and-fast formula can&#39;t work. We all know it isn&#39;t what is being done now.



That&#39;s okay, I guess - if it&#39;s what everyone wants.
Uncle.
Now - and I am absolutely serious about this, having sucked it up and accepted yet another aspect of the new way of thinking - if it&#39;s good enough for SSM/SM/ITA multiple entries, I absolutely DO want the opportunity to make bank renting my spare seat time out, too. Please. I can set up a MkIII Golf with a 200# hot-swapable ballast kit in an afternoon, and make the change in minutes between sessions. Heck, I could save a gazillion hours of labor by not stripping the undercoating off of the next one in the first place and I don&#39;t even have to buy new wheels! I may need to use larger tubing on the next shell&#39;s rollcage but that won&#39;t be a problem.
So my request will be forthcoming just as soon as the new plan is in the books. I&#39;ll also petition NCR to make sure that ITB and ITC are in different run groups, to make it possible for me to get a new racer on the track in my car and maximize their revenues. I recognize that there might be some obstructionists in charge there but we&#39;ll wear them down.
And if your first reaction is to say NO to this, don&#39;t you dare unless you can explain to me why. YOU convinced ME that it is a good idea. Either the rationale presented here...[/b]

Just like I posted in the first part of this discussion: "Maybe a section needs to be added to the GCR limiting the exposure of the dual classification (DC). This would work just like the PCA&#39;s that caused your first heart-attack. ;) "Thank you for your request, car is currently classified properly". Every request will get consideration, but precious few would actually be viable for a DC."

I am not a proponent of &#39;full-blown&#39; DC&#39;s as a policy decision from the SCCA. I am for using them sparingly, when it makes sense for tweeners - similar to the application of PCA&#39;s. Again, these are all peripheral benefits that make up a concept that seems to have merit - you seem to be hung out on one aspect of the &#39;plus&#39; items.

...is valid or it is not. I confess that I don&#39;t yet know what the protest will look like exactly, but there will be one if the rule as applied to my request isn&#39;t consistent with other DC-listed models and the language that ends up in the GCR/ITCS. The bonus - I think that&#39;s what it was called when Jake first mentioned it? - cannot fairly be just for "certain cars," if proposals for "other cars" fall into the parameters defined by DC-approved models.
Kirk (who gets a little sea sick rolling over for stuff like this but is willing to do what it takes to not be IT&#39;s Chicken Little) [/b]

You don&#39;t have to roll over - stick to your guns but your post seems a little whiney. Who knows. I guess I am just sick of the "I will TELL YOU SO when in 20 years we aren&#39;t exactly where we are today" thought process. We can only do our best and let the chips fall where they may. Some decisions are good, some are bad - but they will all be made in good faith with the short and long term health of the class as primary goals.

Write the CRB and tell them why you think this idea stinks...but put some actual downside so they have something to consider. We are at an impass. Others should continue in the other thread.

PS: Here is an estimate on your multiclassing: 2000 in ITA, 2350 in ITB and 2760 in ITC. Think you can get to anything other than ITB? Like I said before, DC works for tweeners, probably not for cars classed properly.

[dickita15]

As an aside, the one part about DC that really chaps my hide, for example, is that here in NE we have an extra race group on Regional weekends simply because of the dual-classed Spec Miatas. [/b]
Greg, this is absolutely positively not true. Ner had SM and SSM in the same run group before 06 and when SSM was first approved by the NE- Div council it was stated that the intent was for the two classes to run together. With both classes running together we were “breaking out” and having to rearange the schedule during the race weekend. We resisted splitting the groups for as long as possible. AFTER the groups were split we began getting more double dippers.

Heck if the SM and SSM still ran together maybe there would be even more special me’s in ITA. I think the group that got hurt the most by the new race group was ITC, instead of racing with the fine upstanding ITA drivers they are now out there in a sea of Miatas.

[dickita15]

PS: Here is an estimate on your multiclassing: 2000 in ITA, 2350 in ITB and 2760 in ITC. Think you can get to anything other than ITB? Like I said before, DC works for tweeners, probably not for cars classed properly.
[/b]
So right now we have a process where the ITAC generates number like this and then makes a value judgment on which class the car fits in. In the above example it looks like an easy decision. Maybe you could do a very expensive build and run A, or run very heavy in C, but B looks right.

With tweeners it is not such an easy call. Take the MR2, the ITAC has their best call on which class drivers want to race the car in. As with any close decision half the club will not be happy, so if the car works in either class why not let the members decide where to race it.

I think the double dipper argument is a red herring. It is not a reason to have DCs but it is not a reason not to have them.

[Bill Miller]

Lots of good things being said. I just want to make a few points.


No way. IT2 excluded RWD. You exclude 3 of the most popular cars in ITA today, the 240SX, the Miata and the CRX. THAT is why I didn&#39;t buy into it. Just because the misclassed 4cyl S cars went to ITA means nothing. And I still submit a hard-and-fast formula can&#39;t work. We all know it isn&#39;t what is being done now.
[/b]

I don&#39;t know why some people still cling to the initial concept of IT2, when it wasn&#39;t that long after Kirk first proposed the idea, that some of the limitations (no RWD) went away. I agree w/ Kirk, ITA today is pretty much what IT2 was operationalized to. If you look at all the cars in the ITCS as a continuum, the band known as "ITA" was shifted towards a higher performance level. I don&#39;t know if the band was widened or narrowed, but it was definately shifted.

Also, I don&#39;t think any of the proponents of a formulaic approach to classification ever thought a &#39;hard and fast&#39; formula was the answer (or that it would even work). I know I didn&#39;t. What it was about, was having an objective model that treated all cars the same. And, in the event of an anomoly, you could recognize it.


I am not a proponent of &#39;full-blown&#39; DC&#39;s as a policy decision from the SCCA. I am for using them sparingly, when it makes sense for tweeners - similar to the application of PCA&#39;s.[/b]

The problem I have w/ this approach, is that unlike PCAs, this has the potential to be largely subjective (and while I don&#39;t want to speak for him, I think this gets to the heart of Kirk&#39;s issue). Unless you develop the policy to include something to the effect of "Cars that are w/in the upper or lower xx% of their class performance envelope shall also be classed in the next higher/lower class, at the process weight for that class", it&#39;s just too subjective, and you create a situation where people will lobby for their particular car or want a legitimate justification as to why their car isn&#39;t treated the same as others.

One of the best things to come out of PCAs and the new IT classification model, was that it became a much more objective process. It lowered the ability of someone in a position of authority (ITAC, CRB, etc.) to favorably influence a given car or cars. THAT is one of the best things to happen to IT in years. Going to some kind of subjective DC model diminishes and undoes a lot of the good that PCAs and the new classification model created.

While I understand that some people view being able to run the same car in multiple run groups as a good thing (gets more people on the track, generates more revenue for the Region, etc.), I&#39;m not really in favor of it. The SM/SSM situation in NER and now WDCR is a good example. Dick mentioned that one of the main drivers in splitting the run groups between SM and SSM, was because they were &#39;breaking out&#39;, and that once the groups were split, more and more people took advantage of the DC option. I can see this easily extending to other DC cars. Maybe it won&#39;t happen as fast as SM/SSM (which is a bit of an anomoly w/in the Club anyway), but I can certainly see it going the same way. What happens when you have a &#39;tweener&#39; car, that now has DC, and all of a sudden, a lot more of those cars come out to play? I&#39;m not picking on the 1st gen RX7, but it has become the poster child for tweeners. Let&#39;s say it gets DC in ITA and ITB (let&#39;s not confuse things any more w/ IT7 and Spec7). You&#39;ve now added more cars to the ITB group. If ITA and ITB run together, you now have the same car (albeit at different weights and w/ different wheels) in the same group yet different classes. As a driver, you&#39;ll have to be very aware of every car on the grid, to know if you&#39;re racing w/ them in your class or not. If they&#39;re not in the same group, now you have the situation Dick described earlier, more and more of the DC cars will start to take advantage of another slot to run in, on the same weekend. What happens when you get so many of those DC cars, that you start to &#39;break out&#39; of your group size? Or what happens when it becomes apparent to the drivers, that they may be better off running in the lower class? In that case, you&#39;ve de facto re-classified the car.

Give the ITS cars going to ITR a year of DC, but don&#39;t extend it beyond that, and don&#39;t make it a category-wide policy. Look back on some of the recent re-classifications. Cars that have been moved down have had little (and in some cases no) weight added to them. If things are that close, you can make the case for quite a few cars getting DC.

[Greg Amy]

As far as the anti-Miata agenda goes - suck it up.[/b]

"Suck it up", Andy?? Way to go, addressing legitimate membership concerns about your proposed policies. If you can&#39;t take the criticism, I suggest you consider your motivations and your own personal agenda.

Maybe you&#39;d feel better if all the committees went closed-door again and pronounced their declarations from on high after implementation...?

And as far your paranoid "anti-Miata" fears, there are none. The same argument stands if they&#39;re Hondas, or Chevies, or Nissans, or Yugos. It&#39;s irrelevant; my "agenda" is nothing more than a desire for parity.



Greg, this is absolutely positively not true. Ner had SM and SSM in the same run group before 06...[/b]

Be that as it may, Dick, the end result is that now these cars - which used to be in one slightly oversubscribed class - are now running multiple classes, further exacerbating the situation. Whereas before they were simply oversubscribed, the addition of another group has encouraged them to dual-enter, making the situation ever moreso, effectively unrecoverable (the genie is out of the bottle now). A good example of unintended consequences, probably something that was not considered when it was done.

Now that SM is National, how do the Regional race group numbers look, if you took the time to go through the entries and remove doubles? Would it still be 2X, or would you find that without the doubles the class would fit real nice back into its own race group? Check the pre-race stats for the upcoming LRP event: six SSMs entered, of which three are also entered in SM. Total group count with ITC: 11. Total count for SM group: 9. Total cars allowed on the track at LRP: 40?

If we found that at all races were we to combine the groups and remove the double entries, that it would still fit nicely, would there be a consderation to do so? Or, would we simply look at the total entry count without considering the doubles, see it oversubscribes the class, and continue to have extra groups?

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I like the idea of increased entries and giving folks the ability for extra track time. What I don&#39;t like is it being done for only selected groups of people, and not giving that same opportunity to everyone, while possibly reducing track time for everyone else due to the additional race group. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Suck it up", Andy?? Way to go, addressing legitimate membership concerns about your proposed policies. If you can&#39;t take the criticism, I suggest you consider your motivations and your own personal agenda.

Maybe you&#39;d feel better if all the committees went closed-door again and pronounced their declarations from on high after implementation...?

And as far your paranoid "anti-Miata" fears, there are none. The same argument stands if they&#39;re Hondas, or Chevies, or Nissans, or Yugos. It&#39;s irrelevant; my "agenda" is nothing more than a desire for parity.[/b]

(On edit - I apologize for that suck it up statement. It just appeared that , like a couple people before you, it was just a &#39;I hate so many Miata&#39;s on the track&#39; sentiment with no real reason why.) Greg, I fail to see a legitimate member concern - at least one that can&#39;t be solved at teh Regional level. All it sounds like is "I hate Miata&#39;s". Your real concern is finally posted in your post so we can address it.

The more cars, the better it is for NER and SCCA. If you build it, and they come, then they get to play on the field. Personal agenda? I have a car that fits only one class - the one that is in the GCR. You and I can run the same amount of run groups at every event if we so chose. Why don&#39;t you run ITE as a second class if you want parity so badly?


Be that as it may, Dick, the end result is that now these cars - which used to be in one slightly oversubscribed class - are now running multiple classes, further exacerbating the situation. Whereas before they were simply oversubscribed, the addition of another group has encouraged them to dual-enter, making the situation ever moreso, effectively unrecoverable (the genie is out of the bottle now). A good example of unintended consequences, probably something that was not considered when it was done.

Now that SM is National, how do the Regional race group numbers look, if you took the time to go through the entries and remove doubles? Would it still be 2X, or would you find that without the doubles the class would fit real nice back into its own race group? Check the pre-race stats for the upcoming LRP event: six SSMs entered, of which three are also entered in SM. Total group count with ITC: 11. Total count for SM group: 9. Total cars allowed on the track at LRP: 40?

If we found that at all races were we to combine the groups and remove the double entries, that it would still fit nicely, would there be a consderation to do so? Or, would we simply look at the total entry count without considering the doubles, see it oversubscribes the class, and continue to have extra groups?

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I like the idea of increased entries and giving folks the ability for extra track time. What I don&#39;t like is it being done for only selected groups of people, and not giving that same opportunity to everyone, while possibly reducing track time for everyone else due to the additional race group. - GA [/b]

So good stuff in these paragraphs. As far as unintended consequenses, I am betting that they were not considered when this was done - but the result is a nice boon in revenue for the Region...and as of right now, no detraction from your - or my - weekend. Win.

I would vote 100% that if a class or run group was oversubscribed that double entries (of drivers, not cars) would be the first to get the boot. We don&#39;t want to burden others with this overflow (which is your concern) but right now, ALL OF US have the ability to do the same in ITE...why is nobody doing it? The potential for the same issue to arrise in that situation is absolutley there. I think the &#39;problem&#39; of too much participation can be addressed at the Regional level by each RR board when - or if a problem comes to a head.






I don&#39;t know why some people still cling to the initial concept of IT2, when it wasn&#39;t that long after Kirk first proposed the idea, that some of the limitations (no RWD) went away. I agree w/ Kirk, ITA today is pretty much what IT2 was operationalized to. If you look at all the cars in the ITCS as a continuum, the band known as "ITA" was shifted towards a higher performance level. I don&#39;t know if the band was widened or narrowed, but it was definately shifted.

Also, I don&#39;t think any of the proponents of a formulaic approach to classification ever thought a &#39;hard and fast&#39; formula was the answer (or that it would even work). I know I didn&#39;t. What it was about, was having an objective model that treated all cars the same. And, in the event of an anomoly, you could recognize it.
[/b]

Bill,

Looking at the IT2 site (http://www.it2.evaluand.com/intro.php3) I don&#39;t see anything about the RWD or CRX issue being removed. I would have thought that would have been important. I&#39;ll have to look up the proposal Kirk sent to the CRB.

I also don&#39;t think the band shifted post-IT2 either. The markers were there - CRX, Integra, 240SX. Now all the cars have been rationalized - and and the performance envelope has not changed.

As far as a formula, I always thought Kirk&#39;s site used a calculator to determine weights. Nothing to compensate for suspension designs or other strengths/weaknesses. Definately could be wrong on that.

-on edit - I am going to bring this concern - as an inintnded concequence over to the other thread.

[dickita15]

[Now that SM is National, how do the Regional race group numbers look, if you took the time to go through the entries and remove doubles? Would it still be 2X, or would you find that without the doubles the class would fit real nice back into its own race group? Check the pre-race stats for the upcoming LRP event: six SSMs entered, of which three are also entered in SM. Total group count with ITC: 11. Total count for SM group: 9. Total cars allowed on the track at LRP: 40?

If we found that at all races were we to combine the groups and remove the double entries, that it would still fit nicely, would there be a consderation to do so? Or, would we simply look at the total entry count without considering the doubles, see it oversubscribes the class, and continue to have extra groups?

Don&#39;t get me wrong, I like the idea of increased entries and giving folks the ability for extra track time. What I don&#39;t like is it being done for only selected groups of people, and not giving that same opportunity to everyone, while possibly reducing track time for everyone else due to the additional race group. - GA
[/b]
Greg, it is too soon to say about this year’s numbers but they may be as little down. SM going national, gas prices, LRP entry fees all could be factors.
You ask if this we be revaluated and the answer is yes, if I have anything to do with it. Consolidating groups is politically hard, but I have been thru it before. If after a year or more likely 2 of data with the current groups there is a better grouping I will fight for it. Of course I will probably end up labeled as a Miata hater again because of it.

The goal of race groups in NER is to have the least number of safe race groups all with 40 cars in them. Now if we could do something about those open wheel guys. :rolleyes:

[Greg Amy]

ALL OF US have the ability to do the same in ITE...why is nobody doing it?[/b]

Because it&#39;s selfish, Andy, and most people aren&#39;t selfish. It says "I&#39;m going to do whatever I want to do, regardless of its affect on other people. I don&#39;t care if we need a second race group to do it, that&#39;s your problem; why don&#39;t YOU do it too??"

But let&#39;s take that idea a bit further: let&#39;s say that I and 12 of my best peers decide to populate ITE every race weekend. Then, let&#39;s say a half-dozen ITS drivers and another half-dozen ITB drivers decided that they, too, want to get more track time. So, we&#39;ve just added - what? - 25 cars to the ITE field, simply because we "have the ability to do the same" thing. We keep doing that, more people start doing it ("hey, we&#39;re ITC! We deserve it too!"?), and now we have an additional group just for the vast field of ITE cars, which means we gotta start either cutting back on everyone&#39;s track time and/or tell people to go home. Hey, F you, I want more track time...I&#39;m special.

You don&#39;t think that would be a selfish move on our part?

Sorry, bud, maybe I&#39;m old-fashioned, but I just won&#39;t do it. It&#39;s selfish and it&#39;s wrong.

[lateapex911]

But it IS being done in Sm and SSM and ITA....but yet it is NOT being done in ITE.

Hmmm.........are the Miata drivers, as a group, more selfish than all the other drivers in the club??

Not likely. (Say what you will about the driving and racing, LOL)

The real reason ITE sees no double dippers is this:

-It&#39;s too fast. Nobody in an ITB or A car want&#39;s to go out there with cars running 10 seconds a lap faster! Fact is, the Miatas fit in well in their douple dip classes. A fast miata with a so so driver is more off the pace than the differences in times between those classes, so the cars blend right in.

On top of that, Miatas are very mileage friendly. They don&#39;t tear up bearings and brakes and they are pretty stout machines. It&#39;s not a huge expense to race it twice in the same weekend. Plus, on the Spec tire, there are more cycles availble.

Finally, to many, it&#39;s an entry level class, and they know that track time is king.

Double dipping is one of the better problems a region can have. It means that they merely have to find a fair way to control entries. Much easier to turn biz away than to come up short on the bills due to low entries. Track rental is $44K at LRP if we run 50 cars or 250.

[Knestis]

... I think the double dipper argument is a red herring. It is not a reason to have DCs but it is not a reason not to have them.[/b]
My take is different - that the double dipping thing will be what captures the interest of folks. It will be the mechanism by which the original intent of the DC idea gets repurposed. Look back at the first posts from folks who have chimed in here, and trends in what they were talking about. What they were talking about is what is most salient to them.

I&#39;m sorry that I&#39;m whining, Andy but I&#39;m frustrated because I can&#39;t answer your questions with any more concrete answers. And I&#39;m frustrated that you want me to, knowing at some level that it&#39;s not possible. There&#39;s no point in hell in writing the CRB because they will (quite reasonably) respond the same way you have. I only hoped that there was a chance some of the key folks here would take on the conceptual issue at hand.

In the interest of history-keeping, the public face of IT2 was indeed "FWD only" but that decision was made for the same reason the ITR ad-hoc subcommittee(?) initially left the &#39;merican cars off the proposed list: To make it a more streamlined, politically-palatable proposal. Turns out that we might have actually made more traction with a proposal to simply raise the index at the top of A and list the orphans but we didn&#39;t understand that at the time. Bill (and others) was privvy to those conversations.

As far as ITE goes as an option for dual entries (red herring back on the plate), there is a WORLD of difference between being able to run a car reasonably competitively in two classes (SSM/SM, SM/ITA) and putting an ITB Golf out there with GT3 Cup cars and Vipers. One is fun. ICSCC essentially lost its "Sports Racer" classes back in the &#39;80s, when it became popular to run second (or third!) entries of IT-type cars there. The SR group became a mish-mash of stuff with a massive performance envelope - "real" ASRs to essentially stock Datsun 1200s - and not particularly satisfactory to anyone.

When Greg says "parity," he means more than just the opportunity to spend entry fee $$. Of course, this point moves forward from the proposition that dual entries are part of the discussion. If they stop being part of the rationale for the DC policy, I&#39;d gladly stop talking about them - even if I don&#39;t stop WORRYING about them.

If the only product of this conversation is a VERY tightly-worded, codificaiton of the limits within which DCs might be applied, that&#39;s enough for me. I still think it would be better to keep the genie in this bottle but I&#39;ve had my say.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Because it&#39;s selfish, Andy, and most people aren&#39;t selfish. It says "I&#39;m going to do whatever I want to do, regardless of its affect on other people. I don&#39;t care if we need a second race group to do it, that&#39;s your problem; why don&#39;t YOU do it too??"

But let&#39;s take that idea a bit further: let&#39;s say that I and 12 of my best peers decide to populate ITE every race weekend. Then, let&#39;s say a half-dozen ITS drivers and another half-dozen ITB drivers decided that they, too, want to get more track time. So, we&#39;ve just added - what? - 25 cars to the ITE field, simply because we "have the ability to do the same" thing. We keep doing that, more people start doing it ("hey, we&#39;re ITC! We deserve it too!"?), and now we have an additional group just for the vast field of ITE cars, which means we gotta start either cutting back on everyone&#39;s track time and/or tell people to go home. Hey, F you, I want more track time...I&#39;m special.

You don&#39;t think that would be a selfish move on our part?

Sorry, bud, maybe I&#39;m old-fashioned, but I just won&#39;t do it. It&#39;s selfish and it&#39;s wrong. [/b]

Well NOW I understand the core of your position. It wasn&#39;t clear to me before. I don&#39;t happen to agree with you. I see it as maximizing the fun I can have at a race weekend given the parameters in which it&#39;s presented to me (not that I do it - but if I needed to break a motor in before ITA and ITE was available at an earlier run group, that would be selfish?). Like I said, the Region would have the ability to squash any double driver efforts, should it become a liability to any one - or all the run groups. I think your view is short sighted - it&#39;s a good problem to have too many entrants and then have to decide the best way for all members to scale back.

Wouldn&#39;t his be possible: (Your region may vary it&#39;s classes)

Every SS car could double up in IT

Every IT car could double up in ITE

Every Prod car could double up in SPO/SPU

Every GT car could double up in SPO/SPU

So maybe we need to determine when it becomes &#39;unfair&#39; to others. Defining a ceiling of sorts (of course this is a Regional issue).






If the only product of this conversation is a VERY tightly-worded, codificaiton of the limits within which DCs might be applied, that&#39;s enough for me. I still think it would be better to keep the genie in this bottle but I&#39;ve had my say.

K [/b]

And this is most certainly a fair statement.

[Greg Amy]

I see it as maximizing the fun I can have at a race weekend given the parameters in which it&#39;s presented to me...that would be selfish?[/b]

...

[Andy Bettencourt]

... [/b]

Because it&#39;s my money and I can choose what I want to do with it including finding something that can provide more bang for the buck should this not. What&#39;s 100% of $0?


Don&#39;t get me wrong, I like the idea of increased entries and giving folks the ability for extra track time. What I don&#39;t like is it being done for only selected groups of people, and not giving that same opportunity to everyone, while possibly reducing track time for everyone else due to the additional race group. - GA[/b]

I think I have shown that everyone pretty much has the same opportunity to double up should they want extra track time. I don&#39;t see it as select groups. Here in NE we have SSM but it&#39;s a 25 car-class for gods sake. Maybe all closed wheel "Regional only" classes should run together! That will thin the heard.

[Greg Amy]

I rest my case.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I rest my case. [/b]

And since your defacto position is that we don&#39;t make it as attractive as possible for people to come and race with the SCCA, then you have made mine.

I find it ironic that your core problem is YOUR value-proposition on a race weekend in terms of track time while that is the same value-proposition these douple dippers seek to maximize as well.

[Greg Amy]

So, lemme get this straight: if we&#39;re all selfish, then no one&#39;s selfish?

Sorry man, it doesn&#39;t work that way...there&#39;s only so much birthday cake to go around, and when someone hogs more than their equal share, then someone must go without. The answer is NOT "everybody grab as much as they can as soon as they can" the answer is "stop being such a selfish little bastard."

Making it easy and attractive to hoard birthday cake just breeds more little selfish bastards.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And when the Birthday cake runs out - or look likes it may run out, each Birthday boy can grab a new cake and decide how they want to slice it up to make as many brats happy as they can - because the bigger the birthday party the better.

[BMW RACER]

The concept of double dipping being concidered selfish caught me completely by surprise! I did a bunch of double dipping last year, I ran 24 races, double dipping on a double race weekend, I quit doing it this year because it became too much work for me. Our region (Calclub) encouraged double dipping, they moved the catch all class (RS) into another run group, they spaced out the run groups to give you more time to fuel up and get back to pre-grid. They even offer a discount for the second entry.

Maybe it&#39;s because we need all the entries we can get, but Calclub does a lot to ENCOURAGE double dipping.

Actually you could be concidered selfish by NOT signing up for the second class!

All a matter of viewpoint.

[dickita15]

My take is different - that the double dipping thing will be what captures the interest of folks. It will be the mechanism by which the original intent of the DC idea gets repurposed. Look back at the first posts from folks who have chimed in here, and trends in what they were talking about. What they were talking about is what is most salient to them.
[/b]

Kirk you may be right and if that it true I am definitely in a minority position (You know what that like don’t you Kirk). :D I am looking at a yard full of noncompetitive racecars that cannot get within 150 pounds of minimum weight. Allowing DC’s makes these Barn Queens viable inexpensive racecars.



If the only product of this conversation is a VERY tightly-worded, codificaiton of the limits within which DCs might be applied, that&#39;s enough for me. I still think it would be better to keep the genie in this bottle but I&#39;ve had my say.
[/b]
Would it be possible, if we only wanted to apply DC’s to tweeners, to state that race weight will only be X percentage above or X percentage below stock curb weight.

[Ron Earp]

This thing has really gone off the deep end.

I don&#39;t write a lot of learned theoretical posts on the board. Not capable.

But this whole double classing thing is coming from yet again what car that has really caused multiple rifts in the IT community - BMW 325i.

We wouldn&#39;t need a DC rule if that car either didn&#39;t exist or was told definitively where to run, correct?

Ron

[Knestis]

The answer to your question depends which rationale is getting applied for the DC policy, Ron.

It either is - or is not at all - about the 325. It either is - or is not - about double-dipping. When the CRB is accused of pandering to disenfranchised ITS Bimmer owners, they&#39;ll trot out the other rationale. When confronted with some smartass wanting the same treatment for his Mexican grocery-getter, they&#39;ll change tack, claiming it&#39;s to resolve the greater tweener issue. Etc.

And therein is the most powerful evidence telling me that we are teeing up a big, fat opportunity for policy misappropriation. Multiple points of view, multiple interpretations, multiple versions of what we evaluation geeks call "theories-of-action," and multiple findings later of whether the policy is a success or not.

But hey, whatever. I love a good policy wonk conversation even if there&#39;s no real resolution possible. Sometimes those are the BEST conversations, in that we learn the most from them.

Explicate the intent in the DC allowance in the ITCS/GCR, be very specific, and maybe - MAYBE - we won&#39;t have a mess to clean up. But there are no guarantees. Don&#39;t do it at all, and the chance of problems goes way down but then, so do whatever upsides have been defined. If they are defined.

K

[lateapex911]

This thing has really gone off the deep end.

I don&#39;t write a lot of learned theoretical posts on the board. Not capable.

But this whole double classing thing is coming from yet again what car that has really caused multiple rifts in the IT community - BMW 325i.

We wouldn&#39;t need a DC rule if that car either didn&#39;t exist or was told definitively where to run, correct?

Ron
[/b]
No no NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back that train up!!!!

It is about ALL cars currently in ITS that are being considered for ITR.

Historically, the theoretical converstaion goes like this:-

Certain ITS cars move to ITR.

Hmmmm thats not entirely cool, it&#39;s a big deal to move those cars up. New wheels, changed weights. Some might have extensive recaging to do as they were designed to run at a higher weight.

OK, Dual class them for awhile.

Hmmmm...what if they can&#39;t get it done in the dual class period?. Is it so bad to leave them dual classed....forever??

OK, well, what are the issues with that....(discussion ensues, but solid reasons are scant) ok, maybe none ...hmmm...well, leave them dual classed for good.

If that happens is that a precident? Can ANYONE get dual classed?

No, but tweeners are good candidates...they should get dual classed. That would solve the MR2 and RX7 problems in ITA. Lots of cars out there not getting raced. We&#39;re here to race, right?

If that happens, who says what a tweener is and what isn&#39;t a tweener??



And now we&#39;re talking about being selfish and hogging track time.

Somewhere along the way is a logical and reasonable place to draw the line.

The conservative thing to do is to allow, and codify it in the GCR as a philosophical statement, the allowance of DC in cases where cars are moved up classes.

The next step would be to add the provisions for the "extremely rare case" where a car is a tweener.

Thats the limit as far as I am willing to discuss.

I&#39;d like to point out that the entire classification process is now institutionalized and very repeatable. I think that in the future, "tweeners" will cease to be an issue.

(Look at how the RX7 and MR2 became tweeners: A bad classification of the CRX that turned the class on it&#39;s ear. The CRB, unable to fix the error for years, then added cars to match the new higher performance envelope. Add to that the post classification ECU rule change, and you can see how ITA became a wasteland for a lot of cars. Having a repeatable process AND PCAs in place will help greatly to reduce the tweener possibility)

[Knestis]

Moved to the correct strand...

K

[Ron Earp]

No no NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back that train up!!!!

It is about ALL cars currently in ITS that are being considered for ITR.

Historically, the theoretical converstaion goes like this:-
[i][/b]

What cars are being considered from S to R other than the 325i? Maybe the Supra in S, but there are none of those around in comparison to 325 numbers. You guys going to put the TR8 in R? :lol:

Seems like the logical thing to do would be to use the classification process in place, class the cars properly, and avoid another "rule" in IT. DC adds a needless layer of complication to the world of IT. Not everyone will be happy where a car ends up going. Period. But trying to placate those with moved cars with a new procedure for IT doesn&#39;t seem like such a good idea.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

What cars are being considered from S to R other than the 325i? Maybe the Supra in S, but there are none of those around in comparison to 325 numbers. You guys going to put the TR8 in R? :lol:

R [/b]

The 3 Preludes.

[lateapex911]

.... But trying to placate those with moved cars with a new procedure for IT doesn&#39;t seem like such a good idea.

R
[/b]

But, think of it this way. You have spent a couple thousand hitting a weight target and building a rollcage to do so. Now...you have to lose weight, and it&#39;s in the cage. Odds are you don&#39;t just saw members out, as they are likely important. Some cars could need extensive work. Plus wheels, gears, and so on. How would you like it if you were faced with having to do that over the (short) winter?? I know I wouldn&#39;t.

DC is a good alternative to give our friends an option. If it&#39;s written well, it will be very limited in it&#39;s scope. Less than 1% of the listed cars will be affected, I bet.

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

Help me out w/ why they would have to buy gears now. Also, no need to buy new wheels (unlike the folks that went from ITA to ITB).

Oh, and maybe it&#39;s time to trot out the &#39;no guarnatee&#39; clause again! :o :dead_horse:

[lateapex911]

Well, ars that are suddenly weighing less, and on wider tires, (such as the cars in S getting moved to R) will be entering straights faster, and accelerating faster down the straights, and, presuming they were geared properly before, will run out of gear now. Of course. that will affect some more than others.

Yes, you&#39;re right...those moved don&#39;t "Need" to get the proper wheels for the class or remove weight, ...but...changing classes on guys who are invested and competitive, and expecting them to be fine with having to choose between being uncompetitive or rebuilding their cars is a bit much.

yea, there&#39;s no guarantee, but we said a long time ago that we&#39;d try really hard to not need to use that if at all possible.

[Bill Miller]

Well, ars that are suddenly weighing less, and on wider tires, (such as the cars in S getting moved to R) will be entering straights faster, and accelerating faster down the straights, and, presuming they were geared properly before, will run out of gear now. Of course. that will affect some more than others.

Yes, you&#39;re right...those moved don&#39;t "Need" to get the proper wheels for the class or remove weight, ...but...changing classes on guys who are invested and competitive, and expecting them to be fine with having to choose between being uncompetitive or rebuilding their cars is a bit much.

yea, there&#39;s no guarantee, but we said a long time ago that we&#39;d try really hard to not need to use that if at all possible.
[/b]

Jake,

Do you actually have data that show that the ex-ITS cars will actually be faster on wider tires? I know of cases where wider tires have actually slowed cars down. As far as your gearing argument, I&#39;ll submit that those &#39;invested&#39; drivers already have different gears for different tracks. I think it&#39;s something that everyone, in all classes is up against. Do you think that the gear you run in your car at LRP would work at Road America?

And from your comment on the &#39;no guarantee&#39; clause, is it safe to say that you favor writing special-case rules that impact a limited number of cars (very limited?) rather than invoking existing policy?

[lateapex911]

Bill, we can debate the technicalities all day long. I showed you some scenarios that I think are likely. You differ. Fine. I think the club owes it to it&#39;s members to try and look at all options. Everybody can&#39;t have it entirely "their way" but, on the other hand, poor classing has cost the club members many times in the past, and needlessly so.

Your&#39;s is a "Tough s#!t " policy, it appears....

I&#39;m looking at options as I don&#39;t see any upside to that in this case.

As far as existing policy goes, we don&#39;t HAVE a policy on what to do with cars in existing classes being moved up to brand new classes.

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

It doesn&#39;t matter if it&#39;s a new class or an existing class, we have a mechanism in place for moving cars. That mechanism has never included DC. As far as poor classing, wasn&#39;t that what a defined classification process and PCAs were supposed to address?

I&#39;m not taking a &#39;touch $hit" approach, I&#39;m just trying to avoid special-case treatment again. Nobody worried about the ITA cars that got moved to ITB having to buy all new wheels. In fact, some said (and IIRC, you were one of them, but correct me if I&#39;m wrong) that they would more than likely be happy to do that because now they wouldn&#39;t be back markers. You could just as easily make the same arguement about having to re-cage a car that had an under-sized cage for its new weight.

It&#39;s not that I&#39;m against change or doing what&#39;s best for the Club and its members, I just don&#39;t think the DC thing is good for the Club, and its members, on the whole. I think it will bring with it more headaches than we can imagine now (see previous comments about unintended consequences). Give the S cars going to R a year to still run in S if they want to, but close the door after that, and don&#39;t extend DC to other classes.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The core differences at this debate are simple. People have brought real benefits of a DC policy - however limited - to the thread. Most, if not all, of the fear of &#39;unintended consequenses&#39; are pur speculation - or simply a &#39;don&#39;t do it because we can&#39;t predict the outcome&#39; thought process.

Allowing it in limited scenarios seems to have many more benefits than drawbacks.

[lateapex911]

Jake,

It doesn&#39;t matter if it&#39;s a new class or an existing class, ...

[/b]

It does when the new class is higher....and cars will have to be de-engineered and rebuilt at great possible expense.



I&#39;m not taking a &#39;touch $hit" approach, I&#39;m just trying to avoid special-case treatment again.
[/b]

But when a small subset of a class gets pulled from that class and has to go backwards in the development cycle, they ARE "special cases"


Nobody worried about the ITA cars that got moved to ITB having to buy all new wheels. In fact, some said (and IIRC, you were one of them, but correct me if I&#39;m wrong) that they would more than likely be happy to do that because now they wouldn&#39;t be back markers.
[/b]

Actually people on the ITAC DID worry, and discuss the consequences of the downward move. It was a concern that they would be forced to buy new wheels, and, it was also discussed that they would have to add weight. In the end, after discussig it with each other and considering member input, it was decided that it was the right thing to do. It&#39;s considered that the move was to fix a classing mistake, that while painful to a degree, it would result in happier members, it seemed the fairest place for the cars, and it was the best remedy available.


You could just as easily make the same arguement about having to re-cage a car that had an under-sized cage for its new weight. [/b]

Lines get drawn, and in that case, the line got drawn on the non recage side. Those cars stayed put.


I think terming it "Special case" is a misnomer...we&#39;re looking at categorical policies. IT&#39;s not about the XYZ 2000R...it&#39;s about anY car that falls under a specific set of guidelines. We have discussed certain cars here, (and I didn&#39;t want to) to help illustrate the situation, but those cars could be anything....if we write the policy correctly.

[dickita15]

Jake,

It doesn&#39;t matter if it&#39;s a new class or an existing class, we have a mechanism in place for moving cars. That mechanism has never included DC. [/b]

probably one of the reasons that DCs never has been used in the past is that before PCAs less thought was given to havng a level playing field where more cars have a chance to win.

[Bill Miller]

Lines get drawn, and in that case, the line got drawn on the non recage side. Those cars stayed put.[/b]

And w/ DC, you don&#39;t have to draw a line. And that line was arbitrary. I&#39;d rather build a 2275# Rabbit GTI for ITC, or I&#39;d rather build an xxxx# 1st gen RX7 for ITB. If you&#39;re going to use DC as a tool to bring more people and cars to the track, don&#39;t take such a myopic viewpoint of it. Sure, existing cars would need be re-caged if they moved down, but not any new ones that were being built.