Dual Classifications in IT

[Andy Bettencourt]

From another thread. Let's debate here.

After much debate the ITAC recommended a dual classification (DC) for the cars in ITS that are now part of ITR. One of the immediate concerns was the precident that it would set for requests for DC's of other cars. The pros and cons were discussed about this new line of thinking and the benefits seemed to outweight the negatives.
I would think these will be approached in an extreamly conservative manner (like PCA's) only being applied in situations where it made sense in that the car was a 'tweener'. Very few cars can be argued to be such.

In an effort to make this as productive as possible, please explain WHY you think something so we can all benefit from your thought process.

[steve s]

i think the cars that will be moved to another class should be given some time in DC to figure things out.[for the club and competitors ]
now it should only apply to cars built before the DC date. and the DC should be for 1 or 2 years.

[Knestis]

From the other thread, taken out of order for the sake of logic, not to alter the context (I hope)...


The DC is not to allow people to share cars. It'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.[/b]
If that is a statement of policy, it's a good thing. Please don't let the tables get turned and allow 'sharing' to become its rationale. THAT would be open to abuse and if it can be avoided, one route to possible unintended consequences is, I think, avoided. Good.


... the majority of cars can 'fit'. Some can't. Those cars aren'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.[/b]
If this is also a matter of policy - that the DC is an option only to resolve (perhaps transitionally?) cars that don't "fit" effectively (e.g., those with cage diameter/minimum weight conflicts, YES), then...good.


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's in general. And here we are. I still haven't heard a solid reason NOT to do it.[/b]
If the policy's primary intention is not to enable sharing, and is not to placate disenfranchised BMW racers, what is it? Maybe that's all I need. Is it to address the tweener question more broadly, and the e36 ITS/ITR situation is just one instantiation of that policy issue?


Your 'what if the next 5 ITAC guys think different' is a red herring IMHO. You could use that arguement for any change at any time.[/b]
Sorry, I don't think that's a fair and strikes me as a bit of a brush off, pesonally. If the DC policy is NEVER PUT IN PLACE, it can't be repurposed by some future decision maker. All I ask is that the immediate upside be balanced against consideration of the almost inevitable "transformation of intentions" that we'll have to deal with in the future. I have an entire dissertation on the subject (and I mean Dissertation, literally) if you want the link.


... Please detail the unintended conciquences so that we can address them. ... [/b]
Again, that's just not very fair. If we KNEW what the unintended consequences were, they wouldn't be unintended consequences. Would it be reasonable to have expected the folks who wrote the "no threaded shock" rule to anticipate that in 20 years the market would be flooded with affordable, adjustable suspension kits? Was it anticipated that someone would pack a Motec in a stock box when the ECU rule was written? Did the guy who said, "Hey, let's allow alternate bushing materials!" picture spherical bearings, when the then state-of-the-art was mod, new aftermarket urethane parts molded off of OE bits? No, no, and no. The cloudiness of my crystal ball - my inability to prove that something "bad" WILL happen - is not a fair baiss for outright condemnation of my concerns.

Kirk (who wants to remind anyone reading this that Andy is smart enough to know that it's a discussion of policy, not an attack)

[Andy Bettencourt]

If that is a statement of policy, it's a good thing. Please don't let the tables get turned and allow 'sharing' to become its rationale. THAT would be open to abuse and if it can be avoided, one route to possible unintended consequences is, I think, avoided. Good.[/b]

We are 100% on the same page.


If this is also a matter of policy - that the DC is an option only to resolve (perhaps transitionally?) cars that don't "fit" effectively (e.g., those with cage diameter/minimum weight conflicts, YES), then...good.[/b]

Again, 100% with you. I can't speak 100% for written in stone policy, but this is certainly how I look at it.


If the policy's primary intention is not to enable sharing, and is not to placate disenfranchised BMW racers, what is it? Maybe that's all I need. Is it to address the tweener question more broadly, and the e36 ITS/ITR situation is just one instantiation of that policy issue?[/b]

This may be hard to understand but here is how I see the progression of the recommendation: The ITS/ITR cars started the discussion. After we went round and round, it was thought that a DC for tweeners could be a good thing. Additional benefits are the potential for more revenue and satisfy ITS/ITR issues as the class shakes out.



Sorry, I don't think that's a fair and strikes me as a bit of a brush off, pesonally. If the DC policy is NEVER PUT IN PLACE, it can't be repurposed by some future decision maker. All I ask is that the immediate upside be balanced against consideration of the almost inevitable "transformation of intentions" that we'll have to deal with in the future. I have an entire dissertation on the subject (and I mean Dissertation, literally) if you want the link.[/b]

It's not intended to be a brush off but any new 'majority' on the CRB/BoD can give or take as they see fit when they are serving their term. The next batch of CRB guys could strike the PCA language from the GCR and allow any future overdogs to run free forever. I guess I don't understand your point. All we can do is our best in the here-and-now while leaving enough breadcrumbs for the followers to undertand why we did what we did to help them make their own decisions.


Again, that's just not very fair. If we KNEW what the unintended consequences were, they wouldn't be unintended consequences. Would it be reasonable to have expected the folks who wrote the "no threaded shock" rule to anticipate that in 20 years the market would be flooded with affordable, adjustable suspension kits? Was it anticipated that someone would pack a Motec in a stock box when the ECU rule was written? Did the guy who said, "Hey, let's allow alternate bushing materials!" picture spherical bearings, when the then state-of-the-art was mod, new aftermarket urethane parts molded off of OE bits? No, no, and no. The cloudiness of my crystal ball - my inability to prove that something "bad" WILL happen - is not a fair baiss for outright condemnation of my concerns.[/b]

I disagree here. One of the most key qualities of a committee member IMHO is the ability to extrapolate the concequences of a rule change. Just because they are 'unintended' does not mean they have to be 'unforeseen'. The reason I don't like the ECU rule is that someone SHOULD have seen that coming. The suspension bushing was an unclear rule right from the start. Each change needs to be looked at for it's pros and cons...and this isn't a rule change that has many - if any - it's just a policy change that limits such damage - no?



Kirk (who wants to remind anyone reading this that Andy is smart enough to know that it's a discussion of policy, not an attack) [/b]

AB (who wants to remind everyone that this kind of discussion is what makes these BB's worth it. We all don't have to agree, but we need to hear all the angles so we can formulate educated opinions)





If that is a statement of policy, it's a good thing. Please don't let the tables get turned and allow 'sharing' to become its rationale. THAT would be open to abuse and if it can be avoided, one route to possible unintended consequences is, I think, avoided. Good.[/b]

We are 100% on the same page.


If this is also a matter of policy - that the DC is an option only to resolve (perhaps transitionally?) cars that don't "fit" effectively (e.g., those with cage diameter/minimum weight conflicts, YES), then...good.[/b]

Again, 100% with you. I can't speak 100% for written in stone policy, but this is certainly how I look at it.


If the policy's primary intention is not to enable sharing, and is not to placate disenfranchised BMW racers, what is it? Maybe that's all I need. Is it to address the tweener question more broadly, and the e36 ITS/ITR situation is just one instantiation of that policy issue?[/b]

This may be hard to understand but here is how I see the progression of the recommendation: The ITS/ITR cars started the discussion. After we went round and round, it was thought that a DC for tweeners could be a good thing. Additional benefits are the potential for more revenue and satisfy ITS/ITR issues as the class shakes out.



Sorry, I don't think that's a fair and strikes me as a bit of a brush off, pesonally. If the DC policy is NEVER PUT IN PLACE, it can't be repurposed by some future decision maker. All I ask is that the immediate upside be balanced against consideration of the almost inevitable "transformation of intentions" that we'll have to deal with in the future. I have an entire dissertation on the subject (and I mean Dissertation, literally) if you want the link.[/b]

It's not intended to be a brush off but any new 'majority' on the CRB/BoD can give or take as they see fit when they are serving their term. The next batch of CRB guys could strike the PCA language from the GCR and allow any future overdogs to run free forever. I guess I don't understand your point. All we can do is our best in the here-and-now while leaving enough breadcrumbs for the followers to undertand why we dd what we did to help them make their own decisions.


Again, that's just not very fair. If we KNEW what the unintended consequences were, they wouldn't be unintended consequences. Would it be reasonable to have expected the folks who wrote the "no threaded shock" rule to anticipate that in 20 years the market would be flooded with affordable, adjustable suspension kits? Was it anticipated that someone would pack a Motec in a stock box when the ECU rule was written? Did the guy who said, "Hey, let's allow alternate bushing materials!" picture spherical bearings, when the then state-of-the-art was mod, new aftermarket urethane parts molded off of OE bits? No, no, and no. The cloudiness of my crystal ball - my inability to prove that something "bad" WILL happen - is not a fair baiss for outright condemnation of my concerns.[/b]

I disagree here. One of the most key qualities of a committee member IMHO is the ability to extrapolate the concequences of a rule change. Just because they are 'unintended' does not mean they have to be 'unforeseen'. The reason I don't like the ECU rule is that someone SHOULD have seen that coming. The suspension bushing was a unclear rule. Each change needs to be looked at for it's pros and cons...and this isn't a rule change that has many - if any - it's just a policy change that limits such damage - no?



Kirk (who wants to remind anyone reading this that Andy is smart enough to know that it's a discussion of policy, not an attack) [/b]

AB (who wants to remind everyone that this kind of discussion is what makes these BB's worth it. We all don't have to agree, but we need to hear all the angles so we can formulate educated opinions - so THEN and only THEN should you write in and tell the ITAC they are morons...:) )

[dickita15]

First of all I strongly believe that the cars being moving from S to R should get Dual Classification at least for a couple of years. The wheel and weight changes do take some work and expense and there are many scca racers who only race a few times a year.

Then the more I think about the broader question of DCs the more I like it. ITA for instance has never been healthier, but there are cars now that cannot make the cut. I am not trying to make this about me but I will speak of what I know as illustration. First Gen Rx7’s where talked about moving to B when PCA came along. Some guys liked it and some did not want to move. Most of those who did not want to move down sited going slower and buying new wheels as the most common reasons. In the end the final reason not to consider it was that the minimum cages in the cars could not support the new process weight. I have four ITA Rx7’s at my shop (two are actively raced at this time) and all 4 have cages that were legal for the heavier weight. I poll the Mazda section of this sight and got about 50 answers. Just about half the cars had small cages and half were oversized.
The Rx7 got a 100-pound weight break in A last year. While possible with a light driver it is not easy or cheap to get to that weight. I am going to try. I have a new shell on a rotisserie as we speak. It is going to take a lot of work and a bit of expense to do it but hopefully I can get close to minimum. There is no practical reason for me to put this much effort in to building an ITA Rx7 but I want to try.

But if the car had DC available someone could take anyone of the 50% of the cars out there and be able to race quite cheap. If the Rx7 fits this scenario how about the many other cars that cannot even keep up with a Rx7. In ITA alone think of the Fieros, Collolas, MR2s and other cars that have no chance now.

I am not worried about the confusion to spectators, at the Glen last month there were 1st gens in Spec 7, IT7, ITA, EP & GT3. I don’t think there were any GT2’s.

I just can’t think of the down side. Give the racers a choice where there is no clear cut best answer and let the market decide.

SCCA club racing is a participant driven. Rules should be written for the participant’s not theoretical spectators.

[lateapex911]

Kirk raises excellent points, as usual.

My vote was initially (when DC was discussed a year or so ago for certain tweener cars) "No", as it seemed to complicate the classes, was confusing to onlookers, was historically not done, and I was afraid of the unknown.

Then ITR came to pass, and I started thinking about cars in ITS that really were better suited for ITR.

Out of fairness to the owners of those cars, I thought that dual classification was a proper solution, if applied categorically. At this point, the policy is that DC only be granted to cars that have been moved from one class to a new class.

It is different than the great reshuffle of 05/06 where cars were being moved as "corrections", and always downward. A downward move is most always easier than an upward move. So allowing the owners of the moved cars time to deal with the changes of an upward move is an important point in my book.

Now, that said, if you fail to aknowledge the stipulation that DC is only granted to upward class moves, (and into a new class at that), then yes, a precedent has been set that allows Dual Classing.

And that point has been discussed...that we need to be careful with this move, or we could find ourselves hit with a hundred DC requests based on the precident. But the precedent at this point will only come up again when a class over ITR is created.

Now, that said, with regards to a larger scope dual classing concept, (extended to inlude cars being moved up a class, AND cars that the process deems "tweeners") here are the pros and cons that I see:

Pros:

- Increased customer satisfaction. Their car hasn't been railroaded against their will.

- Increased revenue and participation. Drivers who couldn't afford or couldn't maintain a car now can now race by sharing a car, as it can fit in two classes. Obviously, this will vary from region to region, and run grouping will determine the viability of that concept. But it's still a possible upside.

- Avoidence of the loss of competitors who object to the cost, or can't bufget for the cost of the required changes from the move upwards. (many cars are built to the weight specs of a certain class, and losing weight requires a rethink and reworking of some significant issues)

- Better member retention. Members of cars that are classed unrealistically can choose whether to stay in the current class, or move to a new class, perhaps after adding weight and changing wheels to comply with the new class requirements. Some cars can't make the move though, as their cage has been built to a weight standard that will be exceeded in the new class. A forced move would require recaging of those cars, and the possible loss of those members to other venues. DC allows them to remain as is, but benefits at least some of that marques owners.

- Better racing. Cars that have not been moved in the past because of concerns of cage issues and have continued to languish. Dual classing will allow many of those cars to return to a competitive position, improving racing across the board.

- Helping to reduce un needed spending.

- Allowing a form of "free market" thinking to deteimine the survival and balance of the cars and classes.

Cons:

- Allowing a "free market" thinking means we can't always put cars where we (only) want them. In ITRs case, it might hurt growth. (On the other hand, forcing cars into the class can backfire, and the owners of those cars might go elsewhere. lose-lose)

- Confusion to spectators. (yea, I know, what spectators?!) And yes, it's a subtle point as we already have identical body styles in different classes as it is.

- The creation of a precedent that could spread to cars that aren't in "need" of dual classification.

Some discussion points as I see them.

Overall, I am hugely in favor of the current policy of DC.

[Knestis]

Questions for consideration:

1. Is the IT7/spec7/ITA situation good for the club, stategically? Why or why not? Answers to this question go some way in illustrating an individual's propensities on this subject.

2. Is it politically feasible to allow DCs and NOT have them be perpetual? Seems like, once there are 325s logbooked in ITS and in ITR, someone would have to be squatted on again to consolidate. We have (the Club) not demonstrated that we are at all good at consolidating or eliminating listings.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Questions for consideration:

1. Is the IT7/spec7/ITA situation good for the club, stategically? Why or why not? Answers to this question go some way in illustrating an individual's propensities on this subject.

K [/b]
Ahhh, the trick question!

In my mind the Triple 7 (T7) classing is both good and bad for the club. Here is how I see it:

1. The birth of T7 manifested from a large amount of drivers in a car that was increasingly uncompetitive in an environment that showed no sympathy or light at the end of the tunnel - BAD

2. Each Region has it's unique ability to support it's racers. If there is demand and particiapation, then the local teams can create a class - GOOD

3. Now that the ship has been 'righted', there are more classes to run in for these drivers - GOOD and BAD (depends on who you ask - some will say it's not fair that a Regional class exisits almost exclusively to allow some to run double track time - others will say you can always run your IT-whatever in ITE or your local catch-all if that is what you really need)

4. What matters now is that the 12A RX-7 fits in ITA. GOOD

5. What also matters is that each local Region can decide for themselves (and what is best for their members) if they keep T7 (for those that even have it - NER is SCCA's second largest Region and we don't recognize either)

So the answer is there is no clear answer from me. The T7 issue was born under duress and may die because of harmony. I have always thought that splinter Spec classes signaled a failure from the 10,000 foot level but may be a success at the local level.

Clear as mud.

[dickita15]

Questions for consideration:

1. Is the IT7/spec7/ITA situation good for the club, stategically? Why or why not? Answers to this question go some way in illustrating an individual's propensities on this subject.
[/b]

What makes something good for the club? From our perspective as club racers it is a healthy racing program. How can we make the program healthy? One way is to lower barriers to entry. Of course we need to do this while not compromising safety or ending with a club where we would not want to race.

I like to race where there is lots of competition, so I personally do not like a club where there is a class so everyone wins.

IT7 was/is good for the club in that it kept cars for becoming barn queens. This is less true maybe with PCAs, but still in this case a lot of cheap popular cars kept racing. When IT7 started I would have thought it better to give them some reasonable chance of success within the existing IT structure.



2. Is it politically feasible to allow DCs and NOT have them be perpetual? Seems like, once there are 325s logbooked in ITS and in ITR, someone would have to be squatted on again to consolidate. We have (the Club) not demonstrated that we are at all good at consolidating or eliminating listings.
[/b]
I only see this as being possible in a case like cars moving from ITS to ITR, but I guess that is your point, you are concerned about expanding them further.




Cons:
- Allowing a "free market" thinking means we can't always put cars where we (only) want them. In ITRs case, it might hurt growth. (On the other hand, forcing cars into the class can backfire, and the owners of those cars might go elsewhere. lose-lose)
-[/b]

ahh Comrad, Stalin faced the same problem. :rolleyes:

[ggnagy]

two comments:

1. Shared rides have been mentioned as an extra benefit. Where does it say that ITS and ITR will be in seperate run groups. Given the close relations of the 2 classes, I could see !TR and ITS being a good match in sharing a run group unless either becomes so popular to be come the proverbial 800lb gorilla. Down in the little ole MARRS series, IT7 runs with ITA. SRX7 run with ITC, but we (SRX7s) are so underprepared compared to IT specs that I have seen very few people enter both. The only cars that seem to get away with that are the Miatas. (see Gorilla, .4 Tons)

2. SRX7 may not be the right class for every region, but it seems to have been a very good one for WDCR. Cost of entry is very low, consumables are low to moderate (until we drain every junkyard in the US of transmissions), the racing close no matter where you qualify, and the fellow drivers very supportive.

[zracre]

Gee wasn't a certain car not competitive in ITS and drew enough interest to start a class that snowballed into one of the biggest to date? SPEC MIATA! IT7 is a good thing. Some cars are cheap available and not competitive in the class they run. If members want a class it should be voted on, researched for feasability and implemented on a region to region basis...if there is enough interest, make it an official class. As far as DC's go why not? more track time=more people racing in the same classes=more $$$ for the club. If the 325 is ITS and ITR how is that bad??

[Knestis]

... I have always thought that splinter Spec classes signaled a failure from the 10,000 foot level but may be a success at the local level.
[/b]
Very well put, Andy - that actually goes a long way toward illuminating how these things do seem to work.

When I say "good for the club, strategically," I mean STRATEGICALLY. Like from the "10,000 foot level." The big view. I'm not sure that it's safe to say that lots of little local successes make for a national success and Andy's comment seems to align with that thinking.

NASA appears to be suffering through this reality, as the national office tries to consolidate something like 65 regional classes into a coherent national program. (A "national championship" will do that to you.) In some ways, this is where the National/Regional designation split in SCCA gets it right - we can have our national soup and eat regionally, too - but IT is a regional-only category with consistent nation-wide rules. Neither fish nor fowl.

We aren't talking here about dual classification being applied to a regional-only class. Instead, it's being applied to a class (ostensibly, one) in a national category. Surely that makes this a higher-risk decision than if Montana Region decided to do apply the same policy...

K

[itracer]

I like the DC idea. When I started racing, I did not have my own car. My brother loaned me his car for the school and my first year and a half of racing. After the school we both ran the car on a race weekend. He raced the ITB Rabbit in ITB and I raced the same car in ITE. As a result, I spent the first year of racing learning how to point cars by. If cars that were on the edge of the class could be easily converted (i.e. add bolt in weight) I could have run with ITC and been a lot safer.

DC seems to work for the Miatas. There are many that run in more than one race group throughout the day with little or no change to the car (SM, SSM, ITA).

DC can lead to dual entries which is better for most of the regions. In my case, it would have made for a better transition into racing. It also may allow me to sucker some more peopel into trying it without impacting my season.

~Jason

[Bill Miller]

Good comments from a lot of folks.

Andy, I'm not sure that the T7 thing is accurate. The way I understand it, you've go Spec7 (actually a few flavors of this w/ rules and names that vary by Region). It's a supposed spec class w/ a prep level below that of ITA. Then you've got IT7, which I understand is no different than ITA, from a prep level. What it did was to give a bunch of folks a place to race IT-prepared cars, and have a chance at a podium. I think that it was good for the Club from a strategic standpoint, because it helped shine the light on the need to address the class structure in IT. I know for me, it was probably the one thing that really got me thinking about an increased level of granularity in the IT classes.

NER is the 2nd largest Region, and doesn&#39;t have Spec7 or IT7, yet the WDCR is the 3rd largest Region (by <1000 members) and now has both. I&#39;m actually not sure why they needed to add IT7 after the weight reduction for the 12A car in ITA was implemented. It&#39;s true that ITA/IT7 is a DC, but it&#39;s a different animal than what&#39;s being put forth for the ITS cars moving to ITR. In the case of ITA/IT7, the prep levels and weights are the same. That&#39;s not the case for the ITS cars going to ITR.

I support giving the ITS cars going to ITR DC for the &#39;07 season, but that&#39;s only for currently logbooked cars. I don&#39;t think a perpetual DC is a good thing for the Club, from a strategic viewpoint. I do understand the cost issues associated w/ the move (mostly wheels/tires), but the same thing applied to the ITA cars that got moved to ITB (they had to dump their 7" wheels and get new 6" wheels). I know that some made the arguement that the cars going from A to B would be happy about the move, and would gladly get new wheels. But the big difference w/ the A -> B moves vs. the S -> R moves, is that the folks going to ITR don&#39;t HAVE to buy new wheels, where as the A -> B folks did.

I&#39;ll be happy to support perpetual DCs if somebody can give me a compelling arguement as to why it&#39;s good for the Club in the long term. And part of that is that the opportunity needs to be extended to other cars in other classes. If not, then it&#39;s just another case of certain cars getting special treatment.

[zracre]

ITA and IT7 run in the same group down here...there were almost as many IT7 cars as there are ITA cars at some races...adds a competitive class to the group. I believe at a few tracks ITA RX7&#39;s can be competitive, but it is very limited. I like the IT7 class and think it should be kept. As Dickita15 says, it keeps them from becoming barn queens, or yard art for that matter!

[Knestis]

Evan and Jason are doing a great job of illustrating why I&#39;m concerned... :)



...adds a competitive class to the group

...at a few tracks ITA RX7&#39;s can be competitive, but it is very limited

...keeps them from becoming barn queens

...can lead to dual entries which is better for most of the regions[/b]
These are the kinds of reasons that resonate with folks, when viewed from a "tactical" point of view. They without a doubt are benefits to some individual racers, helping them further their individual goals. But I ask again...

If this logic applies, it applies broadly. If it doesn&#39;t apply broadly, then WHY? The answer to that question is the beginning of identifying where the DC policy will start to go wrong down the road, after it can&#39;t be undone.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe I am missing it but so far all I read for Bill and Kirk is that it&#39;s &#39;not good strategically&#39; or might be &#39;bad down the road&#39;...but I haven&#39;t heard why. Give me specifics other than the CRB is "gonna get a flood of requests to DC my Humpmobile XLR".

The upside is happier customers. The reasons have been stated in this thread. 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.

What are the downsides? We talked about why it can&#39;t be applied from IT to Prod...as far as a DC for every car in the book? IMHO, DC only works for tweeners - or misclassed cars. The ITS cars going to ITR are misclassed so they work. It works for tweeners becasue it gives them another option.

What is doesn&#39;t work for in most cases is cars that fit the process. Go a class &#39;up&#39; and the minimum weight would be impossible to make - go a class &#39;down&#39; and the amount of ballast needed becomes a major concern to drivers.

Again, what are the downsides? What is &#39; The wrong road&#39;? How about a policy statement in the GCR?

"Dual Classifications in the ITCS will be implemented on a case-by-case basis for those cars that.......(wording to be determined by the CRB after evaluating thier intent).

[JoshS]

I&#39;ve gotta tell you all, I really don&#39;t like dual classifications.

I never really gave the whole idea much thought until I was standing around in the paddock at a San Francision Region regional weekend, and I realized that about half the paddock is made up of Miatas. Then you watch the races, and about half the groups have these same Miatas running in them, usually making up around half of the field. Of course, in the Spec Miata group, they make up the entire field.

A majority of these Miatas are rentals, run by companies that have a fleet of them, renting them out to run in 3 or more run groupsm with no changes at all. (They run in the SM group, the IT group (in ITA), and in the "everything-else" group (in a regional-only class, ITX). ITA and ITX have large turnouts only because of these SM cars, which are not really prepped for ITA or ITX, but just happen to get track time in those classes.

Is it really interesting to see that the bulk of the entries in some class are made up of cars that aren&#39;t really prepped to the rules for that class, but are just allowed there anyway?

I guess it bugs me that the paddock looks like a Miata Club meet. It seems unfair that if you like another kind of car, that you can&#39;t run in 3 run groups like the Miata guys can.

I think the dual classification within IT isn&#39;t likely to get the same effect that the Miata classifications do, because they will very likely be run in the same run group. I feel confident that in San Francisco Region, ITR will run in the current ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC/FP/GP/HP run group.

All of that said, I do feel there is some merit in allowing the cars already running ITS to keep running there for a year or two, giving those people the opportunity to take some time to buy the parts necessary to be competitive in ITR. But in my opinion, new cars on that list without existing logbooks shouldn&#39;t be eligible to run in ITS.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Josh, other than your dislike for the &#39;Miata meet&#39;, what is the downside? Every IT car can run in at least 2 classes - it&#39;s own and the local catch-all. It&#39;s not exclusive to Miata&#39;s. It just may be that Miata&#39;s are perfect rental cars in that they are easy to drive, easy on parts, low power and are reliable.

Prep level varies so much in IT that an SM to ITA is a non issue. Hell, here in NER, 3/4 of the ITA field is faster than half of the EP/GP/FP cas we get grouped with.

We don&#39;t rent our cars for more than 1 class as we don&#39;t want to deal with disgruntled customers if another driver fubars a car.

Again, another vote &#39;no&#39; with no real reason.......... <_<


And did anyone ever stop and realize WHY the fields are populated of tons of Miata&#39;s? They are classed according to the process, there is interest and it is EASY to run them. Maybe a trend we ought to learn from...

[zracre]

dual classing will manifest itself in instances like IT7 and SM...many cheap cars available...no brainer race cars...uncompetitive as classed. As far as creating it i do believe it is a mistake...unless neccesary as in E36 overdog situations. if a car gets classed, unless there is a large force of people wanting change, it should stay as classed unless it is drastically uncompetitive. I see the toyota corolla FX16 in ITB but the MR2 is not. If we have data, cant we make a change in weight to the car? As far as I have seen, MR2&#39;s cannot seem to make the power to hang in ITA...and in ITB with smaller wheels and a little weight it should fit right in...I would not think it would be alot of weight as the car doesn&#39;t make lots of power. You could raise the weight to whatever as the car always weighed more than 2200#

[Knestis]

... What are the downsides? ...[/b]
I guess it&#39;s impossible that there ARE any, since we can&#39;t foresee them today. Go forth and classify dually but have that beer chilled. :)

K

[lateapex911]

I too was opposed to the concept of DC, except in specific cases like the ITS -> to ITR example, and then I was for it if applied categorically and with a sunset clause.

It&#39;s neater that way.

But then I tried to think of WHY I was opposed.

I couldn&#39;t come up with a good reason. I didn&#39;t like it because historically it didn&#39;t exist, but historically, the class poobahs didn&#39;t want to admit errors, so anything like that could never happen! It&#39;s neater, but again, thats not a terrific reason.

And yes, of course...just because I can&#39;t think of a good reason doesn&#39;t mean one doesn&#39;t exist, or won&#39;t come up........... but you&#39;d think with all the people responding, (and smart ones at that), that SOMEBODY would come up with a good reason or scenario other than "I don&#39;t like it, just because", or "It COULD be a bad idea down the road".

I&#39;m not saying that they&#39;re wrong...it very well MAY be a bad idea down the road, but i just want to see how and why...


If there were no advantages to the idea, then I&#39;d see no reason for a change....but there ARE advanteges, and to balance those, I need to see disadvantages.

[Z3_GoCar]

After much thought, I suspose the worst case would be for one make to become dominant in more than one class. Also, if this chassis had a broad base to support it across multiple categories (S, A, and B for example), or even different prep levels. Then it would be awfully hard to dislodge the core group who support the status quo, and IT withers except for the few who come into IT wanting to run the dominant chassis. Who&#39;s to say this is impossible?

[RSTPerformance]

"The upside is happier customers. The reasons have been stated in this thread. 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."

What are the downsides? - I can&#39;t think of any.

I would also take it anoher step further and I don&#39;t see why a "lower potential" car could not elect to run in a faster class, such as an ITC car runing as an ITB car. It "shouldn&#39;t" win so why not? It will only give people more options and places to spend their $$$. besides it would be fun finishing in the top 3 in ITS if it were to rain with My Audi ;)

ok in my "another step" thought I thought of a possible downside...

In the Northeast ITC cars are almoast as fast as ITB cars, and if those cars were allowed to run in ITB (DC) with less weight they could be as fast. Those drivers might feel like taking on the challenge and if they did you could see a near extinsion of a class that already has low counts. Personally I think that a lot of the ITC races are the best races that NER has. 4 or 5 cars running neck to neck for first place and last place at the same time, it would be sad to see even 2 of the cars go for the ITB challenge and forget about ITC. Its one example but realistic in my mind of the potential for one class to dominate and others to fade into the sunset. :015: Although others will certainly view it as a whole new challenge for them!!!

Raymond "Looking at both sides, I still like the idea!!!" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg brings up a legitimate unintended concequence from the other thread:

What happens when DC&#39;s cars fill up run groups thereby 1. Not allowing "1-race" drivers to fit in the group and 2. So many cars are running that the racing day gets shortened because of the DC factor.

Couple of points:

1. If the run group is buldging at the seems, I can see dropping drivers that are double dipping. If a driver is only driving in one race group, he has as much right to be there as anyone else.

2. If there 100 Miata&#39;s and they all double up and the need to shorten the day for everyone is implemented, the &#39;why&#39; of that needs to be addressed. Do we start to REALLY qualify? Do we send the bottom times to a consolation group (still filling up grid space)? Do we consider eliminating the &#39;smaller&#39; Regional only classes (like ITE, SPU, SPO, etc.) in an effort to fit the high ticket classes? Did you know NER has two versions of Club Ford and 2 versions of Formula Atlantic?

3. I hear shouts from the mountain top for &#39;this car can do it so I should be able to also&#39;. But as of right now, we can. Every region has an IT catch-all, probably called ITE. Why are those who want equality not excersizing their current ability to do so? An SM will not run at the front of a competitive ITA field just like an ITS car won&#39;t run at the front of a competitive ITE field. Add to that - that most cars only really fit into one class. See my example of the VW Golf MK III (2000 in ITA, 2350 in ITB and 2760 in ITC - can&#39;t get to 2000 and who is gonna add 400lbs of ballast just to run another run group?)

In the end, I think that each Region has the ability to do what is right for it&#39;s members while trying to maximize revenue. If we bust out, action can be taken - but I think it&#39;s a local policy issue.

Kirk - you are the policy guru, does it make sense for the 10,000 foot policy to &#39;allow&#39; for the double dipping while local policy can allow for it&#39;s restraint should it&#39;s liabilities encroach on it&#39;s benefits?

[Racerlinn]

Andy, you have touched on a point that I had not thrown in yet. While NER may be seeing robust and full fields, we are not seeing that in CenDiv Area 4 (Great Lakes). Nearly every weekend has seen lower car counts - everyone seems to be blaming either gas prices or more localized the Runoffs move away from M-O.
I like any option that can open up more opportunities for racers to race (in Indy we have targeted SM the last couple years trying to draw those folks in).
BUT, I don&#39;t think DC is the way to go for "tweeners". If it&#39;s seat time, have the second racer run ITE/ITX/SP-whatever if they want. If it&#39;s a single racer, make a point to allow crossover - we try and run SM and ITA in seperate groups so we get the crossover (read $$$$ for the Region). Is it fair to non-Miata drivers? Probably not, but most times the ITE class is available for more track time. Still don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair? Then buy a Miata (I had considered it when I started racing last year).
Use the DC with a sunset for the current ITS/ITR concerns and give it a sunset.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Steve,

Thanks for weighing in. One of the reasons we have full fields is that we run on 1.5 and 1.6 mile stuff most of the time. Which is why I ask the policy question about Regions being allowed to do something until it becomes a burden (albiet a good one), then they can correct as neccessary.

DC&#39;s for tweeners is a good idea IMHO. It SHOULD provide a boon in interest of drivers of those cars. If a car can&#39;t fit into either of two classes, we have failed.

I don&#39;t like the &#39;buy a whatever&#39; thought process either. We need to try our best to fit the most possible drivers in under a cohesive set of rules.

[Knestis]

(turns corner, moves toward being productive)

SO, the cases that are even eligible for consideration of dual classification include - and ONLY include...

1. Cars already listed in ITS but subsequently listed in ITR

What else? And PLEASE, whatever you do, don&#39;t start listing cars NOT eligible for DC status. That list can&#39;t be comprehensive so leaves another door open to interpretation and re-purposing.

K

[lateapex911]

(turns corner, moves toward being productive)

SO, the cases that are even eligible for consideration of dual classification include - and ONLY include...

1. Cars already listed in ITS but subsequently listed in ITR

What else? And PLEASE, whatever you do, don&#39;t start listing cars NOT eligible for DC status. That list can&#39;t be comprehensive so leaves another door open to interpretation and re-purposing.

K
[/b]

OK, for the sake of a discussion point:

get out your 2006 GCrs, turn to page ITCS 2....

In the "Specifications" section of the ITCS, after the paragraph ending with:

".......an assement of class equity shall be made and the vehicle&#39;s minimum weight shall be established."

ADD:

"In the rare event that a vehicle has proven to be unable to acheive class equity as the required minumum weight to do so is unreasonably low, and there are existing hardware issues that would prevent a move of all the examples of said vehicle to a lower class, the vehicle will be considered for dual classification. Dual classification will also be extended to those vehicles moved upwards into a new class from an exisiting class"

Reactions??

[Z3_GoCar]

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).


And this is most certainly a fair statement.
[/b]

What about the cars that can&#39;t race anything but the catch-all class? Where do they get to DD? What happens when the catch all class gets clogged up with slower cars, so that some can run 2, 3 or even 4 different groups? Where do the fast guy&#39;s who&#39;s only option is the catch-all class go? Home?

I say make it a 2 year, maybe 3 max, period to switch over. If you want to try it with some down classes too, why not. But don&#39;t make a permenant feature. I agree with Kirk, it&#39;s just begging for trouble from some new ITAC down the road.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What about the cars that can&#39;t race anything but the catch-all class? Where do they get to DD? What happens when the catch all class gets clogged up with slower cars, so that some can run 2, 3 or even 4 different groups? Where do the fast guy&#39;s who&#39;s only option is the catch-all class go? Home?

I say make it a 2 year, maybe 3 max, period to switch over. If you want to try it with some down classes too, why not. But don&#39;t make a permenant feature. I agree with Kirk, it&#39;s just begging for trouble from some new ITAC down the road.

[/b]

While I empathise with your example James, it kind of isn&#39;t something we can focus on when developing policy. In all actuality, those cars are not IT legal and your Region has found a place for you to run. It&#39;s the beauty of the SCCA system actually.

Like I said multiple times before, I think DCing should be used sparingly. For &#39;documented&#39; tweeners and for cars that have been forced to move up. I wonder how we get from a few Miata&#39;s running in a couple classes to somebody running 4 groups and forcing &#39;regular&#39; guys to go home? It&#39;s a major stretch - and one that can be policed at the REGIONAL level. I see it as a good thing that policy allows for all the small benefits of DCing but also allows for each Region to keep the horses in the barn by cutting their cake any way they see fit. The tools are - and always have been in place to make sure a train wreck doesn&#39;t have to happen.

[Knestis]

...
"In the rare event that a vehicle has proven to be unable to acheive class equity as the required minumum weight to do so is unreasonably low, and there are existing hardware issues that would prevent a move of all the examples of said vehicle to a lower class, the vehicle will be considered for dual classification. ...[/b]
Hmm. I confess I&#39;m not sure what this is actually saying. My coworkers are always telling me things like, "explain it to me like I&#39;m in the sixth grade." :)

** If a car can&#39;t, within the IT rules, actually GET to the minimum weight necessary to reach its current class equity target, why wouldn&#39;t it just be moved down a class?

** If by "hardware issues" we mean "it&#39;s got to be heavy enough in the new, lower class that its rollcage is no longer legal," the DC doesn&#39;t solve that guy&#39;s problem.

** Are we therefore talking about the DC only practically being applied to NEW cars (new cages, new logbooks)? That doesn&#39;t make sense because nobody would be dumb enough to build a new car, in its old class, where it&#39;s theoretically not competitive.

Maybe what we are actually talking about is NOT true "dual classification!"

Maybe it&#39;s functionally the grandfathering of cars with existing logbooks, allowing them to stay in their current class at their existing weights, while new examples are all listed in the new class at a lower weight (in the case of an upward movement, ITS > ITR) or a higher weight with legal-sized cage tubes (as in the A tweeners moving to B).

This would not coincidentally take the double-dip out of the question. An A-spec RX7 would be illegally light if it was entered in B, and (assuming the cage problem) would be illegal if it were simply leaded-up to the B minumum. Either way, it&#39;s a non-starter unless we ignore illegalities to allow double dipping. (Argh.)

The only other way to resolve this particular problem is to allow exemptions to the cage tube-size rule.

Or maybe we need to start with specific examples, and work to the general statement about DCs, if I&#39;m off-base here...?

I think the ITS/ITR question is a lot easier, by the way. Are there any examples of where a car might be moved, say from A to S and sensibly be grandfathered?

K

Re-reading this, my head starts to hurt. SOMEONE PLEASE - give me an example we can work with!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Re-reading this, my head starts to hurt. SOMEONE PLEASE - give me an example we can work with! [/b]

Pick this one apart.

[/b]</div>
</span></span>

[Knestis]

The last sample text is so vague as to allow ALL KINDS of confusion/mischief. To my mind, putting the 325 in ITR is a "clear choice of classes."

But sorry - I wasn&#39;t clear. I need a clear example - or examples - of an actual car situation, around which we are writing the rule. Be concrete: What is the case for, say the MR2 to have dual listings? It starts with...

1. The ITA target class equity target dictates a minimum weight that the MR2 simply cannot achieve, within IT rules (is this true, by the way?)

2. ...?

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Once you start permanetly classing cars in more than one class, it will be abused. If you think that the e-36 325 was a mess, how much harder would it be if it were dominant in more than one class.? A multi-class over-dog wouldn&#39;t just multiply the problem, it would raise it to the power of the number of classes that the chassis is in.

If the MR-2 can&#39;t reach it&#39;s target weight, why not just move it down? Surely the weight for the lower class won&#39;t be much more than it&#39;s old weight and it can keep the same cage spec&#39;s.

[Bill Miller]

Jake&#39;s post from the other thread, slightly edited.

Certain ITA cars move to ITB.

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



Funny how DC wasn&#39;t even mentioned w/ these cars.


The more I read about people&#39;s thoughts on DC, the less I like it. What exactly is the point of allowing new ITR nee ITS cars to have DC? Give the cars a year w/ the option to run in ITS, but that&#39;s it. Also, when

[lateapex911]

Hmm. I confess I&#39;m not sure what this is actually saying. My coworkers are always telling me things like, "explain it to me like I&#39;m in the sixth grade." :)[/b]

Thats why its been thrown out there...to get it shaken out!



** If a car can&#39;t, within the IT rules, actually GET to the minimum weight necessary to reach its current class equity target, why wouldn&#39;t it just be moved down a class?
[/b]

Well, since you asked for a concrete example, I&#39;ll give you one that I&#39;m all too familiar with and happen to know the numbers on. There may be others, but I can&#39;t think of many off the top of my head.

The RX-7 in A is a car that has a weight that is too low for certain chassis to make, but even for those rare chassis that barely acheive weight, it&#39;s arguably not hitting the process target. But...half or so of the cars built (based on a poll a few months back) have cages that are too small for an increased weight. That makes moving the car down a class problematic, as half the cars would need to be recaged, as well as re-wheeled. The other half are overbuilt for the spec weight. Allowing DC gives those cars that ARE overcaged the option of moving to a new class at a heavier process weight, or staying put if they prefer. The cars built to the smaller cage specs can stay put, or recage. DC is a reasonable solution in this case, as it offers options to a large contingent of cars that otherwise might be "barn queens".



** If by "hardware issues" we mean "it&#39;s got to be heavy enough in the new, lower class that its rollcage is no longer legal," the DC doesn&#39;t solve that guy&#39;s problem.
[/b]

Actually, in certain rare cases, it does. See above.



** Are we therefore talking about the DC only practically being applied to NEW cars (new cages, new logbooks)? That doesn&#39;t make sense because nobody would be dumb enough to build a new car, in its old class, where it&#39;s theoretically not competitive.
[/b]

No..hopefully the process can fit cars in reasonably well to start with. It&#39;s the existing models on the books that create the issues.



Maybe what we are actually talking about is NOT true "dual classification!"

Maybe it&#39;s functionally the grandfathering of cars with existing logbooks, allowing them to stay in their current class at their existing weights, while new examples are all listed in the new class at a lower weight (in the case of an upward movement, ITS > ITR) or a higher weight with legal-sized cage tubes (as in the A tweeners moving to B).
[/b]

It could be applied to existing logbooks only...that is an option. In my GCR paragraph example I would refer to it as "Extremely limited DC-ing where a very strict set of guidelines were met"



This would not coincidentally take the double-dip out of the question. An A-spec RX7 would be illegally light if it was entered in B, and (assuming the cage problem) would be illegal if it were simply leaded-up to the B minumum. Either way, it&#39;s a non-starter unless we ignore illegalities to allow double dipping. (Argh.)
[/b]

Actually, double dipping is still a very infrequent possibility. An ITA RX-7 with a big cage COULD run A with no ballast, then add ballast and swap wheels and run B. Of course, thats dependent on the Regions DP policy, the rungroups and the timing.



The only other way to resolve this particular problem is to allow exemptions to the cage tube-size rule.
[/b]

Been there, discussed that, got the "Rejected" stamp. Not gonna fly.



Or maybe we need to start with specific examples, and work to the general statement about DCs, if I&#39;m off-base here...?

I think the ITS/ITR question is a lot easier, by the way. Are there any examples of where a car might be moved, say from A to S and sensibly be grandfathered?

K

Re-reading this, my head starts to hurt. SOMEONE PLEASE - give me an example we can work with!
[/b]

OK, I tried!

On the ITA to ITS thing, I am doubtful as to the actual need, as the PCA process is rather thorough. One car comes to mind as apossible problem, and there is an "out" in the PCA description for dealing with it.

[Knestis]

The RX-7 in A is a car that has a weight that is too low for certain chassis to make, but even for those rare chassis that barely acheive weight, it&#39;s arguably not hitting the process target. But...half or so of the cars built (based on a poll a few months back) have cages that are too small for an increased weight. That makes moving the car down a class problematic, as half the cars would need to be recaged, as well as re-wheeled. The other half are overbuilt for the spec weight. Allowing DC gives those cars that ARE overcaged the option of moving to a new class at a heavier process weight, or staying put if they prefer. The cars built to the smaller cage specs can stay put, or recage. DC is a reasonable solution in this case, as it offers options to a large contingent of cars that otherwise might be "barn queens".[/b]
OK - thanks, Jake. That helps! Now, write a simple explanation that generalizes this situation, without giving away the farm...

Dual classification - the listing of the same make/model of car in two IT classes at different process weights - will be granted for cars reclassified into the next-lower IT class, if and only if...

1. Its class equity target in the higher class requires a minimum weight that is effectively not achievable under the IT rules, with a driver exceeding the 180# allowance, AND...

2. Its class equity target, in the proposed lower class, is high enough so as to make necessary a larger diameter/wall thickness tubing for required rollcage elements, than was allowed based on its race weight in its original higher class.

Hmmm?

Now, what&#39;s the argument - and an example - for DC status for cars being moved UP?

K

EDIT - notice I specifically said "will be granted" rather than putting in a bunch of crappy, waffley language. That "will be considered" stuff leaves room for screwing around. If it "will be considered," it might be granted as a "rare" situation, even if it is some goofy-assed situation that none of the current ITAC&#39;ers would approve.

[mustanghammer]

I favor Dual Classifications and do not feel that this process needs to be rationed or used as a last resort for "proven tweener cars." Dual Classification is a tool to, as Jake stated, get cars out of the barn and on the track.

What I think I am seeing in this discussion is that some of you do not know how to regard a car with dual classifications. A car that exists in two classes is really two different cars that must conform to two different rule sets. For example an F Production Miata is not the same as an E Production Miata. They may look the same but they ain&#39;t the same and the car owner, competitors and tech officials always manage figure this out IMHO.

As far as "double dipping" is concerned what are you worried about? In Midiv this is common. In IT we get double dipped by Spec Miatas that run in ITA and T1, T2, T3 and AS cars that run in ITE. You should have seen the Ferrari T1 car that ran in the IT group as an ITE car at the June HPT National. Scary but we survived. I personally own a car that can compete in 5 classes:

ITA
IT7
EP
GT3
GT2

Is that quintupple dipping?

[Bill Miller]

What I think I am seeing in this discussion is that some of you do not know how to regard a car with dual classifications. A car that exists in two classes is really two different cars that must conform to two different rule sets. For example an F Production Miata is not the same as an E Production Miata. They may look the same but they ain&#39;t the same and the car owner, competitors and tech officials always manage figure this out IMHO.


[/b]

Scott,

The Prod comparrison is a bit of a red herring as well. Yes, the EP and FP Miatas are different, but then again, so are the 1.6 and 1.8 EP Miatas. Same car, same class, different rules/prep levels. And to take it even further, it looks like next year, you&#39;ll have 5 different flavors of Spridget in HP (948 full prep, 1098 full prep, 1098 limited prep, 1275 limited prep, and 1275 hybrid). So yes, they can sort these things out in Prod (through comp. adjustments), what&#39;s being discussed for IT DC is the same car at two different weights (and possibly w/ different wheels). Not really the same animal as Prod DC. What you&#39;re talking about w/ the Miata E/F DC is similar to what we have today in IT w/ things like the 2nd gen. Golf. Run it w/ a 1.8 8v and it&#39;s in ITB, or run it w/ a 1.8 16v and it&#39;s in ITA.

[mustanghammer]

Scott,

The Prod comparrison is a bit of a red herring as well. Yes, the EP and FP Miatas are different, but then again, so are the 1.6 and 1.8 EP Miatas. Same car, same class, different rules/prep levels. And to take it even further, it looks like next year, you&#39;ll have 4 different flavors of Spridget in HP (948 full prep, 1098 full prep, 1275 limited prep, and 1275 hybrid). So yes, they can sort these things out in Prod (through comp. adjustments), what&#39;s being discussed for IT DC is the same car at two different weights (and possibly w/ different wheels). Not really the same animal as Prod DC. What you&#39;re talking about w/ the Miata E/F DC is similar to what we have today in IT w/ things like the 2nd gen. Golf. Run it w/ a 1.8 8v and it&#39;s in ITB, or run it w/ a 1.8 16v and it&#39;s in ITA.
[/b]


Seems to me that the only difference between Prod and IT are the number of variables allowed by the rules. In Prod they have more to play with and in IT we have weight and maybe wheel width. The end result is the same - a car with two (or more) classification options. Problems?

[Bill Miller]

Seems to me that the only difference between Prod and IT are the number of variables allowed by the rules. In Prod they have more to play with and in IT we have weight and maybe wheel width. The end result is the same - a car with two (or more) classification options. Problems?
[/b]

If only it was that simple.

[Knestis]

<still waiting for a generalizable example of DC being appropriate to a car moving UP a class>

I&#39;ve been convinced that, so far, there is precisely ONE type of case - Jake&#39;s example - that argues for DC on its merits for a group of cars, in some particular bind. If that is the case, write the rule to apply ONLY to that set of conditions, make DC applications automatic in those conditions, and we&#39;re in OK shape.

Write a big, floopy rule allowing the "consideration" blah, blah, blah and we set up the conditions for problems.

Someone make the next case.

K

[lateapex911]

<still waiting for a generalizable example of DC being appropriate to a car moving UP a class>

I&#39;ve been convinced that, so far, there is precisely ONE type of case - Jake&#39;s example - that argues for DC on its merits for a group of cars, in some particular bind. If that is the case, write the rule to apply ONLY to that set of conditions, make DC applications automatic in those conditions, and we&#39;re in OK shape.
[/b]

Ok, great! One down...one to go.



Someone make the next case.

K
[/b]

Well, as I&#39;ve said before, (hence the long response time), I think preexisting cars that get moved up should see some DC considerations.

Think about the Prelude or (gag, here I go...) the E36.

As an ITS car, the E36 needed to weigh 2850, and with the equipment level that fancy shmanzy BMWs carry, getting well below that was easy. Now, If you have a light chassis, (relative to spec weight) you have a luxury, and you can put that weight back on where you think it will do the most good. It&#39;s not unreasonable to think that many builders decided to put it in chassis stiffness and safety..aka, the roll cage. We see many cars with dual front downtubes, and other design details within the cage that are codependent.. It&#39;s not a simple matter to just start sawzalling tubes from some of these cars. It&#39;s reasonable to think that some of the participants may be looking at a significant project. Now, add to that the issues with the wheel package, and the possible regearing, (and it is not prudent to assume they already have one,) plus the whole rejiggering of the setup, and you can see that it&#39;s a significant investment in time and money that will be required, if they wish to compete at the same relative level as they did previously.

I think thats a significant point...by just moving the cars, we are essentially forcing a large expenditure of time and money to maintain competiveness, OR we are saying "Hey you can still race, but you&#39;re not going to be at the same level you were at". Is that fair to the guy who put the time and money aside and labored building his car for a season, and is now expecting to actually just race it to back up and do it again??

We think that the cars "Fit", based on their physical properties, better in the new higher class. But, they DO fit where they are now. For some owners, they may not have the time or money to do the conversion, and are content where they are. Forcing them to move could be forcing them to leave. others might leap at the chance to play in a higher class.

Perhaps the solution isn&#39;t to dual class the models affected, but to dual class the models affected that are existing logbook cars, and forcing the new logbook cars to run the higher class.

I hesitate to put a one year sunset date on it though as I don&#39;t see the great harm in allowing it on such a specific and limited basis, and I see greater harm and risk by not allowing it.

I think writing the requirement, as Kirk did above rearding the other example is very do-able in the case of moving up a class as well.

[Knestis]

Yeah - I&#39;m not as easily convinced on this one, I&#39;m afraid.

I recognize the logic but it&#39;s hypothetical. I can just as easily see "put that weight back on where you think it will do the most good" being operationalized with lead on the floor rather than cage tubes.

The e36 example also moves forward from the proposition that it "fits" where it is now, when in fact it does not. To fit in S, it should weigh a lot more than it currently does. They were built to 2850 - what&#39;s their proposed ITR weight again? How 325s slated for ITR placement, and by this I mean logbooked examples, have ballast installed, and how much?

Not convinced yet. Maybe one of the Hondas makes for a better case? Are there any non-ITS-to-ITR examples?

See, my revised point here - since I&#39;ve accepted that I&#39;m not going to be able to fight city hall and dissuade the decision-makers from doing this - is that if the DC thing REALLY only applies to a very few cases, the rule needs to be written JUST FOR THOSE CASES, in terms of the conditions that have to be met for its application.

Specifically.

Now, if the policy is being implemented to throw a group of entrants a bone, because they&#39;ve been well and truly yanked around, the policy needs to SAY THAT. I&#39;m on record as believing that 325 owners would have ultimately been better served if they&#39;d just taken their lead and moved on, but all of the politiking catalyzed the creation of ITR - a good thing - so who&#39;s to say we&#39;re worse off at this point...?

K

[dickita15]

Here is what I do not understand about those who fear DCs. If the ITAC determined that a 1992 hupmobile fits the process in class X and a given weight you would be ok with using the process. If the same car fits class Y at some other given weight you would trust the process.
Now the ITAC has to make a subjective decision which class at which race racers would prefer. Why? If the process says it fits in two places why not do so and let the market decide which way to race the car.

I think IT is a better place to race now that we have PCAs and a process. Trust the process.

[Bill Miller]

and the possible regearing, (and it is not prudent to assume they already have one,) [/b]

We&#39;ll have to agree to disagree on this one Jake. I have a mid-pack car (at best), and I&#39;ve got two different trannys, w/ different R&P ratios, and would build a third, if I thought it woudl get me anything. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s prudent to assume that they don&#39;t already have different gear setups.


We think that the cars "Fit", based on their physical properties, better in the new higher class. But, they DO fit where they are now[/b]

I really think you need to take a step back from this stuff, because you sure seem to have lost your objectivity. And E36 325 fits [sic] in ITS based on its physical properties? I don&#39;t think so, otherwise we wouldn&#39;t have spent all those months going back and forth over the SIR deal. I really can&#39;t believe that you can honestly say that an E36 325 fits [sic] in ITS, based on physical properties alone.


Perhaps the solution isn&#39;t to dual class the models affected, but to dual class the models affected that are existing logbook cars, and forcing the new logbook cars to run the higher class.[/b]

If you&#39;re using DC as a way to mitigate the conversion costs to existing racers, I don&#39;t see how you could look at it any other way. It costs what it costs to build a new car, there are no conversion costs.



I hesitate to put a one year sunset date on it though as I don&#39;t see the great harm in allowing it on such a specific and limited basis, and I see greater harm and risk by not allowing it.[/b]

Pure and total speculation, (not that anything isn&#39;t at this point in time), but how about gathering some feedback from the people that are impacted?

[Andy Bettencourt]

...but how about gathering some feedback from the people that are impacted?
[/b]

The feedback we have received so far is as follows from potential DC&#39;ers:

FWD Prelude guys love ITR so they don&#39;t care to be in ITS because they never had a chance

E36 letters all against ITR classification - your guess is as good as mine on that one. Maybe fear of the &#39;unknown&#39; as opposed to knowing where they stand now.

MR2 guys love the thought of trying B at a higher weight

(I don&#39;t think the 12A is enough of a tweener anymore at the new weight...so I haven&#39;t asked anyone)

[mustanghammer]

Here is what I do not understand about those who fear DCs. If the ITAC determined that a 1992 hupmobile fits the process in class X and a given weight you would be ok with using the process. If the same car fits class Y at some other given weight you would trust the process.
Now the ITAC has to make a subjective decision which class at which race racers would prefer. Why? If the process says it fits in two places why not do so and let the market decide which way to race the car.

I think IT is a better place to race now that we have PCAs and a process. Trust the process.
[/b]


What HE SAID!

Couldn&#39;t agree more. This is about choice and possibly the extension of an older car&#39;s life span in IT. Not to mention the relative increase in resale value of a car that can be used in different classes and remain competitive as a result.

Yes, the PCA&#39;s do make IT better I am already seeing this even though my RX7 is hopelessly over-weight. The brand H cars in ITA got slower.

[lateapex911]

We&#39;ll have to agree to disagree on this one Jake. I have a mid-pack car (at best), and I&#39;ve got two different trannys, w/ different R&P ratios, and would build a third, if I thought it woudl get me anything. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s prudent to assume that they don&#39;t already have different gear setups.
[/b]

But if you ASSUME they DO have all the stuff...and they DON&#39;T, you&#39;re writing checks with their pocketbooks. That&#39;s not something I feel is prudent. I think that we need to err on the side that presumes they DON&#39;T have multiple gearsets, etc. It&#39;s only fair. Am I alone in this??



I really think you need to take a step back from this stuff, because you sure seem to have lost your objectivity. And E36 325 fits [sic] in ITS based on its physical properties? I don&#39;t think so, otherwise we wouldn&#39;t have spent all those months going back and forth over the SIR deal. I really can&#39;t believe that you can honestly say that an E36 325 fits [sic] in ITS, based on physical properties alone.
[/b]

Well, if you are using the term "physical properties" to mean the &#39;natural&#39; physical properties of a car, then really, very few really "fit". IT uses modifiers to make many cars fit a narrow performance window....in 99% of the cases that&#39;s weight. But one cars physical properties have been further adjusted by the clipping of it&#39;s top end power. Does it work? Well we all know it&#39;s possible. But I&#39;m not comfortable that it&#39;s the "best" fit.

( A car that doesn&#39;t "fit" would be one that, after known solid development is not able to make the process numbers, and should be adjusted or moved to another class, or one that exceeds process numbers, and needs to be adjusted or moved to another class)

However, we now have cars that "fit" but were rather &#39;forced&#39; into the class by overmanipulating the physical adjusters, that are up for movement to a higher class where it is felt they will be a more &#39;natural&#39; fit. There may be owners who think it fits fine where it is, for various reasons, and would rather not change it. I have heard lots of feedback and think that there are many reasons for this, but no matter what, I think we need to respect the owners situations.



.... , but how about gathering some feedback from the people that are impacted?
[/b]


See below.