September fastrack

[lateapex911]

I'm not Kirk, but.

I do NOT think that any rule does that short of re writing the line....

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Dual classification is intended to allow entrants of cars that have difficulty achieving the specified process weight in one IT class to race in the next-lower class at the appropriate process weight for that class - this option being seen as preferable to forcing all entrants into one class or the other. Dual classification is not intended to achieve any other goal (e.g., providing opportunities for multiple entries in a single car), even if some individuals in some instances may realize other benefits from this allowance. Requests for dual classification based on rationale beyond the stated intent will not be considered."[/b]

Very well written, however, write your Fastrack responses to these 'Dear ITAC" letters (because they will come):

1. MY car can't make weight. I built an uber-cage to remain safe and there is no way I can get to minimum. Please don't make me make my car less safe to be competitive. Please dual class the 'Gremlin' in ITA and ITB.

2. MY car can't make weight. I am 6' 5" and 260lbs and my combination of entrant and car seem to be a candidate, please dual class the 'Pacer' in ITS and ITA.

3. MY car can make weight, but only at significant expense in time and money. As an entry-level class for SCCA, I shouldn't have to do anything but remove the interior and add a cage. Rotisseries? 100% stripping? NO I SAY! Let the average guy play at an achievable weight. Please dual class the 'Rambler' in ITB and ITC.


Do I think it's the best answer? No. Do I think it's a pragmatic solution that balances the various needs? Yes.

K[/b]

What do you think IS the best answer? Could it be the most "pragmatic solution that balances the various needs"...or is it something else?

[ddewhurst]

Let evolution take it's course. Let em die or IT will become the same as the poster child. (H & G Production)

Drew, no comment required. We should ALL learn from history. :023:

[Knestis]

Very well written, however, write your Fastrack responses to these 'Dear ITAC" letters ...[/b]
That's too easy - "The car is correctly specified." Actually, if it were me, I would add, "Piss off, you great tosser" or words to that effect.


do you think DC opens the door for the elimination of the "no garauntee of competitiveness clause?"[/b]
Not in the least. It would be an adjunct mechanism to allow IT specification the process to work, and introduction of that process didn't obsolete that clause. I don't think it's written particularly clearly but it's held up relatively well.

K

[lateapex911]

But David, i suggest that you are confusing the issues. We're using the RX-7 as an example, because it has characteristics that make it very much a good consideration for dual classing. (Existing models built to a then mandated heavier weight, difficulty in getting certain years of the spec line to a new lower weight, etc)

This is NOT a discussion that is limited to, or centered on, old and obscure cars, with failing parts supplies.

((And using Prod as an example is a complete disconnect. They avoided the obselete parts issues by changing the rules on a car by car basis and allowing alternate designs of those parts. That is clearly NOT what we are discussing here.)

If there were a car that had been classed for say 1 or 2 years when it got a weight change that made it very difficult for the existing entrants to acheive, (and some could not) that was a popular car and only 7 years old, would you say the same thing??

[tnord]

:devil:

But isn't that the whole point (perceived) of the DC/B move? To allow the cars in question to become more competitive? Even though the car fits within the paramaters of the process in a certain class, we're going to move it to this class so that it can be more competitive? Won't others use this as precedent to justify a move for their car? Even though the no competitive clause may remain in text, it's actual function goes to zilch if we start trying to balance the performance of all cars "on the head of a pin."

KISS

:/devil:

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's too easy - "The car is correctly specified." Actually, if it were me, I would add, "Piss off, you great tosser" or words to that effect.

[/b]

Not letting you off that easy... :)

- My ITA RX-7 can get down to minimum weight but only after considerable time and expense. Time and expense I consider to be well outside the intent of the class. Please dual class the 12A RX-7 in ITA and ITB.

- My MK1 MR-2 can't get any closer than 80lbs of minimum weight. Please dual class in ITA and ITB.

Your responses to these two given the framework of your proposed wording?

[lateapex911]

Travis, the whole point of ALL the classification moves is to create the playing fields in the most level manner possible. BUT....they will never be perfect, and there is no guarantee that they will be any percentage of perfect.. Simple.

But it doesn't mean we can't try...

[Knestis]

Your responses to these two given the framework of your proposed wording?[/b]
Wouldn't be an issue because they would have been proactively considered by the ITAC and set with the institution of the DC policy, using whatever parameters they felt ARE appropriate. They would also have documented HOW they arrived at their decisions, and put those into the intent record.


...even though the car fits within the paramaters of the process in a certain class, we're going to move it to this class so that it can be more competitive?[/b]
As long as it's aligned by the process in its new class, it's not benefiting from some extraordinary measure to make it "more competitive." It's being made "just as competitive as the process is intended to make all cars in ITB."

My point about the "no guarantee" clause being badly worded, is that it isn't really that. It is - or should be - a statement about what won't be done to try to level competitiveness (e.g., use of competition adjustments [bleah], or model-specific allowances). It should SAY what it means so the phrase can't be repurposed to make arguments unrelated to its real intent. We spend a lot of time farting around trying to decode intent of statements like that, when it's not particularly hard to be explicit about them in the first place.

K

[tnord]

As long as it's aligned by the process in its new class, it's not benefiting from some extraordinary measure to make it "more competitive." It's being made "just as competitive as the process is intended to make all cars in ITB."

[/b]

and once the car gets into ITB at it's still uncompetitive but easier to achieve weight, the next phase will be the chinese-water-torture method of asking for a weight adjustment, which gets into your model specific issue.

that's what i see coming.

[dickita15]

Travis,

I can’t say I understand where this correlation between being competitive and DCs is.

The Process is the tool that we use to class cars competitively.

Tweeners fit the process in more than one class.

Often competitors in said tweeners are split as to in which class at which weight they would rather race.

Dual Classification allows the car to be raced in either class at the process weight and allow the free market to decide where it fits best.

[tnord]

Travis,

I can’t say I understand where this correlation between being competitive and DCs is.

[/b]

because that's what they're ultimately trying to get, this is just the first step in the process. They feel like the car is currently uncompetitive as classed, and at least in the case of the RX7, no weight adjustment can really be made, as it's already hard enough to get there (but it CAN be done, which is all that matters). So the first step is to get it moved down a class and add weight. But since it is being classed using the same process, it will likely still be too heavy to really be competitive. now....since it was moved down in class and up in weight, there IS some room to adjust the minimum as it's already been proven to be capable of making the lighter weight. let the letters pour in, the 20page threads fly, and if the weight is adjusted, there's your model specific action setting precedent for everyone else.

[Knestis]

and once the car gets into ITB at it's still uncompetitive but easier to achieve weight, the next phase will be the chinese-water-torture method of asking for a weight adjustment, which gets into your model specific issue.

that's what i see coming.[/b]

I see it coming, too but not caused by DCs - should they come to be. The two issues are unrelated unless someone wants to conflate them to further their particular agenda. While I'd LOVE to find a way to do in that kind of thinking, I can't.

However, I'll vehemently oppose competition adjustments (bleah) wherever I see them.

K

[tnord]

I see it coming, too but not caused by DCs - should they come to be. The two issues are unrelated unless someone wants to conflate them to further their particular agenda. While I'd LOVE to find a way to do in that kind of thinking, I can't.

However, I'll vehemently oppose competition adjustments (bleah) wherever I see them.

K
[/b]

i agree that they are two issues (though in this case not unrelated) that can be handled separately. here's the thing, it could be desguised as an adjustment to the process for rotaries, not as the model specific adjustment they're motivated by.

if the next logical step is shunned, and they're still uncompetitive in ITB, what's the point? the only way i can see this working is if it's accepted that they're bringing guns to knife fights. IF someone has very well developed ITA 7, then brings it down to ITB where the regional culture in B is less competitive than A, it could work. but then of course the B guys will just step up their game.....

so again.....what's the risk/reward of this?

[Jake]

FWIW, I don't consider the MR2 a tweener. I see the RX7 as one where there may be much controversy over where it should be. But there aren't many MR2's around - and the ones I've talked that own ITA cars as well as many that would like to build their cars - ALL want to go to ITB. Furthermore, many top ITB drivers have weighed in on the issue and also believe it should be in ITB.

The absolute worst idea is the one on the table - putting the controversial RX7 move in as a rider to the MR2 bill. Or making DC a prerequisite for a move that membership wants.

Jake

[dickita15]

Jake is right. The Mr2 should not be lumped in to the Rx7, assuming that the vast majority of the mr2 guys want to buy new wheels then let it happen. They do not need DCs.



because that's what they're ultimately trying to get, this is just the first step in the process. They feel like the car is currently uncompetitive as classed, and at least in the case of the RX7, no weight adjustment can really be made, as it's already hard enough to get there (but it CAN be done, which is all that matters). So the first step is to get it moved down a class and add weight. But since it is being classed using the same process, it will likely still be too heavy to really be competitive. now....since it was moved down in class and up in weight, there IS some room to adjust the minimum as it's already been proven to be capable of making the lighter weight. let the letters pour in, the 20page threads fly, and if the weight is adjusted, there's your model specific action setting precedent for everyone else.
[/b]

I disagree. Just because it can be done if you push the envelope and pick the right year does not mean all those cars parked can be lightened.

You said it yourself. The only way to get a negative competition is to convince the ITAC that the process fails the car. That is a whole other fight and not a good reason to not solve the problem at hand.

The advantage is that even if you are right and the Rx7 is not competitive in B at least by being able to get a car to weight I think people will give some of these parked cars a shot.

[ddewhurst]

***And using Prod as an example is a complete disconnect.***

Jake, that ^ would be YOUR opinion. :o IIRC, on this site I have read posts (might have even been by you) about how difficult it is to get some rotor motor parts. If we all :OLA: to your opinion some of us couldn't have the lower links substituted per the written rule. :cavallo:

[Knestis]

...here's the thing, it could be desguised as an adjustment to the process for rotaries, not as the model specific adjustment they're motivated by. [/b]
Huh?


if the next logical step is shunned, and they're still uncompetitive in ITB, what's the point? the only way i can see this working is if it's accepted that they're bringing guns to knife fights. IF someone has very well developed ITA 7, then brings it down to ITB where the regional culture in B is less competitive than A, it could work. but then of course the B guys will just step up their game.....[/b]
There's NOTHING wrong with competition - we call it "racing" after all - and if the result is more competition in B, that's a good thing. The point is that they will have been given a shot at actually getting treated right by the process, which quite frankly takes away one point about which someone can complain.

K

[tnord]

Huh?


iirc, there's a different power adder factor for rotaries than there is for piston engines. as a workaround to asking for the first gen RX-7 to get a weight break, they can argue that the process fails the rotary engine, and an adjustment needs to be made. to me this is the two different ways of asking for the same thing, but i'm generally not in the majority it seems.

[quote]

it'll take away one, and open up another ---- min weight being too high.

quite frankly, i really don't care much at all. have fun.

[planet6racing]

But there aren't many MR2's around - and the ones I've talked that own ITA cars as well as many that would like to build their cars - ALL want to go to ITB. Furthermore, many top ITB drivers have weighed in on the issue and also believe it should be in ITB.

The absolute worst idea is the one on the table - putting the controversial RX7 move in as a rider to the MR2 bill. Or making DC a prerequisite for a move that membership wants.

Jake
[/b]

Emphasis added.

I was going to stay away from this, but I'm crabby, so I'll dial in my two cents:

How is this what membership wants? Asking the 5 people who drive MR2s to go to B is hardly what the membership wants.

From my membership standpoint, I say keep it in A. Moving it to B, at the process weight, will change NOTHING, other than the happy go lucky feeling that you can make weight. You will still be at the back of the B field, looking for some other excuse. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF COMPETITIVENESS IN IT. Period. End of sentence.

Again, just my $0.02.

[Knestis]

Wow. Bill IS crabby. :)

Running the risk of making him worse, Jake DID use the term "membership" - as in "some group of individuals who are members" - rather than "THE membership." There are others among us besides those 5 who think that it's worth pursuing this issue, even if we don't de facto assume that the MR2 move (or any other) should just "happen."

If a move (or DC) allows a car to make its minimum weight, it's NOT guaranteed to be competitive but it IS given a chance - at least on paper. I think that's what the MR2 peeps are looking for. Personally, I have a vested interest in the health of ITB of course so conceptually, I'm good with the idea of learning whether it's a place for those who aren't finding a home in A.

K

[planet6racing]

A chance at what? Seeing the taillights of the B field? If the process works, the addition of the weight should offset their performance by the same amount in B as making the weight in A. If you're at the tail of A, slapping 300# (WAG) in the car and a "B" over the "A" on the car should (will) send you backwards, assuming the car is built to the full extent of the rules in both cases.

There are cars that make poor choices for race cars. I know. I own one.

[Greg Amy]

There are cars that make poor choices for race cars. I know. I own one.[/b]
Uuuuhh, did I miss you buying a different car...?

http://www.kakashiracing.com/reports/2007nhis4.html

[planet6racing]

Jeff bought a fully developed car. The cost to develop said car is very high.

[Doc Bro]

Jeff bought a fully developed car. The cost to develop said car is very high.
[/b]


Send Jeff flowers in the mail....maybe he'll tell you a good Saturn story!!!

R

[Greg Amy]

Jeff bought a fully developed car. The cost to develop said car is very high.[/b]

First: show me ANY car that's cheap to develop to the pointy end of any group?

Second: http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=12619 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12619)

Third: Where's the other SPS car that was for sale for a while?

Luv ya, Bill, but I don't buy it...

[Jake]

A chance at what? Seeing the taillights of the B field? If the process works, the addition of the weight should offset their performance by the same amount in B as making the weight in A. If you're at the tail of A, slapping 300# (WAG) in the car and a "B" over the "A" on the car should (will) send you backwards, assuming the car is built to the full extent of the rules in both cases.

There are cars that make poor choices for race cars. I know. I own one.
[/b]

Bill - first of all - you are right that most MR2's are still going to be at the back of an ITB field as long as the CB still thinks that the Mid-engined advantage is worth what it is. If they just put the car at the process weight, it would be a good ITB car.

But there the MR2 is not a poor choice for a race car. It has become a poor choice because of the way it is classed. Hell, Minivans could be lapping Porsches if they were classed poorly enough.

[tnord]

But there the MR2 is not a poor choice for a race car. It has become a poor choice because of the way it is classed. Hell, Minivans could be lapping Porsches if they were classed poorly enough.
[/b]

is the ruleset/how the car is classed not a part of the decision making process?

my guess is for many people the answer is "no," which is how we end up in these situations.

[gran racing]

What Greg said. You're by far from the only person running a car that can't find off-the-shelf go fast parts.


If the process works, the addition of the weight should offset their performance by the same amount in B as making the weight in A.[/b]

Bill, you're missing the point in relation to the MR2. Your statement would be accurate if those said cars are making the minimum weight in ITA. The problem being cited is that these cars are unable to make the minimum weight. In this situation, by moving the car to ITB, it would be able to achieve the process weight which then would improve the performance of the car within the class.

[tnord]

The problem being cited is that these cars are unable to make the minimum weight.
[/b]

i thought we already decided that while making weight in a 7 was hard, it can be done.

[planet6racing]

Bill, you're missing the point in relation to the MR2. Your statement would be accurate if those said cars are making the minimum weight in ITA. The problem being cited is that these cars are unable to make the minimum weight. In this situation, by moving the car to ITB, it would be able to achieve the process weight which then would improve the performance of the car within the class.
[/b]

From what I have gathered from reading every post in this thread, no one has gone through the work to make a minimum weight car (reference what Dickita went through to make a minimum RX7).

But, whatever. It doesn't matter. I'm not racing an MR2. But, I will "vote" against DCs.

[Hahn63]

i thought we already decided that while making weight in a 7 was hard, it can be done.
[/b]

Travis, one car meeting the weight and we aren't sure it's all legal and you make a statement like that!? Not sure we can decide anything. Dude, you need to drive one of these RX7's and you would be feeling our pain. They ain't no Miata! You get the torque (the little you’re going to get) right off idle and it is a flat line from there. This is all momentum, that is all you have to live on and it isn't much. Have to lift for anything and it's a half lap before you’re back up to speed.

I have built many very competitive cars over the years and know how to take weight off. I'm telling you here and now I know for a fact that the odds of getting to the current allowed weight is not possible with out some very super grey interpretations of the rules. This isn't right, not even remotely.


Roland

[tnord]

Travis, one car meeting the weight and we aren't sure it's all legal and you make a statement like that!? Not sure we can decide anything. Dude, you need to drive one of these RX7's and you would be feeling our pain. They ain't no Miata! You get the torque (the little you’re going to get) right off idle and it is a flat line from there. This is all momentum, that is all you have to live on and it isn't much. Have to lift for anything and it's a half lap before you’re back up to speed.
[/b]

we haven't really found it to be illegal either have we?

an RX7 ain't no miata? my 1.6 in SM trim should come in about 115hp and 105tq (120hp 108tq for the good pro motors), i run it with ITA stump-pullers like an E30 BMW, Neon, VW Scirocco, or a 240sx. i KNOW about trying to race a momentum car.

[Jake]

For all that haven't kept up, NOBODY has EVERY made weight in a MR2 with a 180lb driver. And I am including 100% builds. It cannot be done.

[Hahn63]

Travis, have you driven a 7 ever? I have driven a Miata and you ain't got no momentum car...hate to tell ya!

Now I'm getting on the grumpy side. :014:

Roland

[tnord]

Travis, have you driven a 7 ever? I have driven a Miata and you ain't got no momentum car...hate to tell ya!

Now I'm getting on the grumpy side. :014:

Roland
[/b]


no, but i&#39;ve been in the draft of 7&#39;s and they pulled me down the straight. <_<

[Hahn63]

no, but i&#39;ve been in the draft of 7&#39;s and they pulled me down the straight. <_<
[/b]


Well Travis, come to Nelson with your car and I&#39;ll bring ours. We&#39;ll swap cars and you tell me. I&#39;m not going to get personal but your way off course guy, driving is believing. Enough said. :dead_horse:


Roland

[tnord]

ok buddy. :023:

[gran racing]

in relation to the MR2.[/b]

Travis, I wasn&#39;t talking about the RX7.

[Dave Zaslow]

After 15 pages I&#39;ve read enough to form my opinion. The points have been made quite fully. I do not want to see any car dual classified. IT, as a whole, should subscribe to the KISS principle. IMHO that is what has kept us healthy, viable, and growing.

Not all cars are created equal, nor are they developed equally. Shall we have "the Stig"* drive the most developed of each one and compare times with the normal driver of the car? I have enough trouble with slow ITS cars not wanting to get passed by a mere B car. Should they all opt to go to B until they can get to S times?

As an ITB driver, if the MR2 racers want to go to ITB at that process weight and with 6" wheels that is fine with me. The ITAC can monitor the cars and make an adjustment as necessary.

As an ITB driver, if the first generation RX7 racers want to go to ITB at that process weight and with 6" wheels that is also fine with me. The ITAC can monitor those cars and make an adjustment as necessary. Those that don&#39;t want to step up to closer racing can stay in Spec/IT7 or whatever they want to call it in each region. I would suggest for those events where ITB and Spec/IT7 may run together, the Spec/IT7 have identification front and rear so those racing in B can know what that car&#39;s class is.

Dave Zaslow

* If you have not watched "Top Gear" on BBC America or Youtube, take a look.

[Andy Bettencourt]

* If you have not watched "Top Gear" on BBC America or Youtube, take a look. [/b]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/1/11/TheStig.jpg

[lateapex911]

Thats the Series 1 and 2 Stig...

THIS is the current Stig....listening to "How to speak Italian" CDs as he drives...

[Greg Amy]

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/1/11/TheStig.jpg
[/b]
Naw, dude, get with the program. That&#39;s the "old Stig"; he was killed off several years ago (supposedly after Perry McCarthy revealed himself to be the Stig in his book, "Formula One the Hard Way").

The *new* Stig is now white and has not, as yet, been revealed (though his identity is under much scrutiny):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/TopGearStig.jpg/225px-TopGearStig.jpg

On edit: Gulick, NEMESIS!!!

[lateapex911]

ha HA!

For extra points though, can you tell me:

HOW the black Stig was killed off?
and...

what does the current Stig&#39;s left nipple resemble...

and what is his favorite snack?

(All easy..)

[Andy Bettencourt]

There is only one Stig to me. BLACK. White &#39;jumped the shark&#39;.

[tnord]

Warren Wallace is infinitely cool than some guy that crashes Paganis into advert boards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWgpGVGeL_g

[Greg Amy]

HOW the black Stig was killed off?[/b]
Drove a Jag off an aircraft carrier, was it?

>>> what does the current Stig&#39;s left nipple resemble...
Nurburgring!

>>>and what is his favorite snack?
Damn! Got me on that one...




There is only one Stig to me. BLACK. White &#39;jumped the shark&#39;.
[/b]
Bah, phooey on you!

[JeffYoung]

My favorite Top Gear segment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzZZZG4bgzg