So, what TRULY matters...? [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

lateapex911

07-29-2008, 08:31 AM

Some of my ITAC colleagues disagreed with me this evening, when I expressed the position that "the membership" (that's you all, plus those who don't visit this board) believes the following first principles are most important, where IT classification and specification decisions are concerned:

K

Allow me to attempt to shed some light.... [reporter mode]

If I heard it correctly, it's about where the line gets drawn with regards to subjectivity.

I think the "sticky" point comes into play when there are cars that don't fit the process. Sometimes things that we know, or suspect strongly can cause cars to be classed in ways that can be considered "incorrect".

For example: The Showda Motor Company has a car that is popular and up for classification, but the ITAC has multiple reports that the HP rating from the factory is suspect. Aftermarket suppliers have reported that stock wheel HP is lower than what it should be by 20HP or so.

The process uses stock hp. What should the ITAC do?

Reverse the example: The Hideon Corporations model up for classification seems to make incredible power in IT like builds, and market speculation is that this is likely due to the company being very conservative with it's stock HP rating. Using the stock rating will result in a misclass.

What should the ITAC do?

Sometimes it's hard to understand who is saying what on con calls, due to people talking over one another (unintentionally,of course), and bad audio, etc...........but, I think I heard some opinions stated that certain ITAC members think that the membership wants the cars classed correctly.....that the ITAC should use it's "inside" knowledge to "adjust" for suspect stock HP ratings.

(Now, keep in mind that those are just two of many examples. Another might be when a car that uses the same ...or similar engine as another car already classed that is a known overachiever comes up...does that car get "tweaked" or let fly with standard adjustments, risking an overdog?)

Again, certain members, if I heard correctly, feel the membership desires that the ITAC "gets the cars right"....as the first and overriding principle....and that the method takes a secondary role. (Other ITAC members feel that each member has, as his first principal, that his car be treated most "fairly", and all the other cars be given a conservative and strict weight, ...(LOL?)...a position that probably holds at least some water, if the letters we get are an indication.)

[/reporter mode]

I will admit, the first item above is where it can get tricky.....and I have my personal 'standards', which I think are closer to following the principles listed above, but, I do see the need to somehow account for exceptions that arise.

Kirk, by ALL means, correct me if I'm mis representing what you heard.

seckerich

07-29-2008, 08:34 AM

The three points you mention are a big part of the increase in participation in IT over the past few years. Point 4 should be a reality check. Does the car we just ran through the "process" make sense? No process is 100% and it will always have some common sense or knowledge based input. Big problem is that the percentage you are off is magnified as the HP goes up. 2-5% in ITC is nothing compared to the same error in ITS or ITR. If very popular cars are not getting built you need to see point number 4.:happy204: On edit after seeing Jakes post. Yes, you should use known information in classing. That is what the multiplier is for and was used for many cars classed now and is correct. Factory HP numbers are for marketing or insurance companies. Many are very suspect. Go back and run ITS through the process at 25% and you have a one car class. You guys are on the ITAC because you either have the knowledge or can find it from reliable sources. In the end we go home if you stick to some high and mighty morals in the "process" and the racing sucks.

spawpoet

07-29-2008, 08:40 AM

Note here however that I'm specifically talking about placing cars in classes and determining what they should weigh - not about changes allowed by the rules.

K

If this is your end goal, then it sounds to me like your Repatability and Jeffs (and your fellow ITAC'ers) Hands-Offability/Stability both address this end equally. If the process is repeatable over time that would be stable. FWIW I think you guys do a good job. The OVERALL parity in IT is excellent. A damn fine job of cat herding sir. And as Jeff noted this IS club racing. Some people take it all a little too seriously....it's supposed to be fun.

chris

tnord

07-29-2008, 09:00 AM

the NEED to get cars right is where it gets ugly. i certainly can't disagree with Kirk's three principles, but they all get muddled when dealing with a car where the math doesn't add up. situations like the BMW in ITS, CRX in ITA, and RX-8 in ITR will certainly create conflict amongst everyone, and understandably so. in order to get these cars "right" the three ideals must be compromised, which i'm guessing some are not willing to do in any case. but i think you have to.

stuff like the ITS BMW's can single handedly ruin a class, and must be avoided. so if you *knew* that situation were about to happen if you classed a certain car at it's process weight, what should you do? not class it at all? leave it an overdog? or do you gather and use the best information you can get to try and "get it right?"

i think you try and get it right, though i'm sure others will disagree. and even those that agree you should do this, will disagree on the methodology and numbers used to do so.

Knestis

07-29-2008, 09:13 AM

Jake describes another priority that I didn't feel entirely able to treat accurately - mostly (I confess) because I personally don't agree that it's a priority that outweighs the others: That being what he described as "getting it right." Ultimately it comes down to...

Would you rather have a more repeatable, consistent process that potentially leaves some cars with "real world" performance differences that we can't account for, or a more subjective process that tries to "get them right?"

Understand that we're talking pretty narrow degress of difference here. As has been pointed out, we aren't completely bustified. And this is largely an issue of perceptions - comfort, fairness, etc. I continue to be VERY confident that the differences in actual competitiveness imposed by driving skill, budget, and development effort far outweigh the variance imposed by the make/model chosen or the "accuracy" of the race weight. (See also, "Kirk can only do a 1:50 at Rd Atl in the car that won the 2007 ARRC.")

:)

K

EDIT - ...there's also the issue of costs associated with ANY change. That's come up in conversation here as well as in ITAC deliberations.

gran racing

07-29-2008, 09:17 AM

Big problem is that the percentage you are off is magnified as the HP goes up. 2-5% in ITC is nothing compared to the same error in ITS or ITR.

Percentage wise, I guess so but at the same time a weight error of only 50 - 75 lbs hurts and ITC car more so than an ITR car.

While I like the use of a known process, I also recognize that there's a need for some subjectivety to come into play. If a car is well known to have a very low HP rating and that's truly what the ITAC believes through their research (as in your example Jake), then I don't think the ITAC should just use the published HP number.

jjjanos

07-29-2008, 09:40 AM

For example: The Showda Motor Company has a car that is popular and up for classification, but the ITAC has multiple reports that the HP rating from the factory is suspect. Aftermarket suppliers have reported that stock wheel HP is lower than what it should be by 20HP or so.

The process uses stock hp. What should the ITAC do?

Depends on the objective function of the ITAC. Is it to classify the car? Is it to classify the car so that it gets raced? If the former, the ITAC shouldn't deviate from the process and the car is an enternal underdog. If it is the latter, the ITAC should use all of the available real world data on specifications (weighted for reliability) to classify the car.

Yep, that's subjective... but so is a large portion of the process. Why is the 'adder' for the plasma coil inducer +25 instead of +50? Why do certain engine types/makes get different HP multipliers?

Reverse the example: The Hideon Corporations model up for classification seems to make incredible power in IT like builds, and market speculation is that this is likely due to the company being very conservative with it's stock HP rating. Using the stock rating will result in a misclass.

What should the ITAC do?

Less harmful situation as using the process will not result in the defacto banning of the car from IT. If the strict process is used, the car will exist in that configuration for one, maybe two years before the competition adjustment... er, I mean the 3-year reclassification rule, results in moving it up a class, more weight or a restrictor. There is little lasting damage though, the car will get built.

My vote is again with using all reliability-weighted information on the vehicle in classification. Relying on published information when it is known to be wrong or heavily suspected to be wrong is foolish. What would the ITAC do if they were classifying an Avanti and Avanti themselves said - stock, this car generates 115 HP but rechipped and in IT-trim, it'll generate 230HP? Ya gonna use the published and correct stock HP to classify or are you gonna use what the car is known to produce under the rules?

Greg Amy

07-29-2008, 09:45 AM

...it's about where the line gets drawn with regards to subjectivity...
...Sometimes things that we know, or suspect strongly can cause cars to be classed in ways that can be considered "incorrect"...
...What should the ITAC do...
OK, well, I think we're back to the old argument that I've had with more than one or two of the ITAC members over the years. And my position hasn't changed: pure objectivity is key, let the chips fall where they may.

ANY time you try to "adjust" the process based on "known" information, you're actually breaking the process. Why? Because you're making decisions based on what you THINK you know. Problem is, you DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS. In reality, you have very few of the facts. So, what you end up doing is chasing the outliers, when - in fact - you haven't caught the real outliers, you've only caught the outliers that weren't smart enough to play the game.

Then, you want to pretend that someone is being honest when they say they've done ALL THEY CAN DO to get xxx ponies out of an engine, and want an adjustment? Yeah, right...

So you are, in effect, making competition adjustments based on results, before there's even any results. Those initial "results" may not be on-track results, but they're results nonetheless. You're trying to pretend you're not doing comp adjustments, when you really are. And then you're not backing that up in the end.

You're trying to pretend you can predict the end results without actually correcting those mistakes that will inevitable happen.

...that certain ITAC members think that the membership wants the cars classed correctly.....that the ITAC should use it's "inside" knowledge to "adjust" for suspect stock HP ratings.Blech, blah, ptooey!!! Honestly and frankly, guys, don't know SHIT, you only know what people choose to let you know.

Sorry, but you're not nearly as smart individually or collectively as the whole of the population you're trying to "govern". Central Planning doesn't work guys.

Plus, you won't use the intestinal fortitude to back up that Central Planning by adjusting based on on-track results...so, in effect, you're trying to govern the outcomes without actually governing the outcomes.

It. Will. Fail. Always has, always will. - GA

Andy Bettencourt

07-29-2008, 09:57 AM

It was a long call and it got a little crazy at times but I most certainly am willing to but my nuts on the chopping block so everyone knows where I stand.

- I want to TRY and get each car 'correct'
- I understand it's actually impossible to get each cars weight correct
- I think using some subjectivity and known data to set weights is the right thing to do
- I think using a 100% repeatable formula will result in a serious overdog in every class

So I want a process that is very repeatable (knowing it may not be 100% of the time given a variety of factors) but is transparent and defendable. I HAVE to be able to look someone in the eye and tell them WHY the weight got to be what it is. I can accept we will dissagree - but I at least have to have the answers - or be able to reverse engineer the process to get to the min if the info isn't right in my brain.

I would rather think I am 'right' (CRX @ 2250 in ITA) than have it be a robot-like formula which would result in what *I* consider mistakes (like a 1960lb ITA CRX) because we used ONLY stock HP, no known data, etc.

I guess I would rather believe in what I think is right, do it with integrity, explain it to anyone who asks and feel like the category is better off for it at the end of the day - no matter who thinks I am an idiot.

(Disclaimer: being 'right' is impossible in all of this)

tnord

07-29-2008, 10:04 AM

So, what you end up doing is chasing the outliers, when - in fact - you haven't caught the real outliers, you've only caught the outliers that weren't smart enough to play the game.

so what matters here? holding to some philosophy which not everyone agrees on, or actually getting the CARS ON TRACK within the performance window? if there's some car out there that will destroy everything else, but nobody races it, why does it matter? and if some guy who likes to race wallets decides to spends the time/money developing it, don't you want the flexibility outside the process to be able to reign in that example?

Greg Amy

07-29-2008, 10:37 AM

- I want to TRY and get each car 'correct'
The real "root issue" here is that there is a difference in philosophy, a difference in what one defines as "correct". I'm not necessarily impugning or attacking that difference, I'm simply pointing it out.

I want a fully objective mathematical system, free of human frailties and political tinkering. While I may have faith in the current ITAC members to not let their biases and opinions interfere, I do not have that faith for the future. I am promoting an even classification in advance, ignoring the on-track results.

Andy defines "correct" as a desired end result, where the list of "competitive" vehicles is long, broad, and any one of these cars could win on any particular weekend. Andy is, by any others means, promoting an even on-track result.

I personally do not believe that Andy's goal is realistically possible without a LOT of tinkering, both in advance and arrears, and not without a massive amount of seriously transparent work. I know Andy thinks the ITAC can do it, but I - truly respectfully - disagree.

I think using a 100% repeatable formula will result in a serious overdog in every classSo do I. At which point we say, "sorry, it's up a class you go." I'd much sooner tell a 1960-pound CRX to change the "A" to an "S" long before I'd face the population saying that I and my peers are spending a lot of subjective energy trying to make everyone "correct".

so what matters here? holding to some philosophy which not everyone agrees on, or actually getting the CARS ON TRACK within the performance window?
Fine, Travis, if that's what you want, then let's call a spade a spade and put in full-up COMPETITION ADJUSTMENTS, most certainly based on on-track performance. Because that's what you're promoting!

If you want competitive parity, then let's drop the facade of 'no competition adjustments' and do it right, with such things as lead trophies, annual weight adjustments and single-inlet restrictors.

If you're goal of "correctness" is to have even on-track parity, then let's do it "correctly" instead of pretending we're not. 'Cause what you're doing now with your subjective pre-adjustments is nothing but competition adjustments with a set of frilly pink panties to look good... - GA

JeffYoung

07-29-2008, 10:49 AM

On edit -- and Kirk, thanks for that first post. We haven't had a good IT centric discussion here in a long time. It was needed.

Given the full range of marques and factors involved it is simply not possible to have a system entirely devoid of subjectivity. As Andy and others have pointed out, the result you get is a prevalence of overdogs. There is no way, for example, to apply a IT prep horsepower number "across the board" to all cars. It's just not possible.

Moving cars up and down isn't the answer either. That in and of itself requires subjectivity. Is the 1980 lb process weight CRX "too fast" for A? Will it be unacheivably light in S? etc. etc. etc. etc.

The trick is to only inject subjectivity in the process where necessary, and as a last resort. "Where necessary" becomes a function of making sure good people get put on the ITAC. That's what we can control, and what we should focus on. We have a workable process in place that the "real world" data has shown has made a lot of chassis competitive in S and A when that was not the case before. Keep putting good people on the ITAC and hope for the best. That is all we can do.

tnord

07-29-2008, 10:54 AM

So do I. At which point we say, "sorry, it's up a class you go." I'd much sooner tell a 1960-pound CRX to change the "A" to an "S" long before I'd face the population saying that I and my peers are spending a lot of subjective energy trying to make everyone "correct".

so then what? you move a 1960lb car up a class, re-run it through the 100% repeatable, objective, rigid process, reclass it at 1660lbs, which nobody can reach, and you massively piss off a core group because you just made them uncompetitive. OR, you move a 2750lb car up a class, which gets spit back out at 2450 through your still unflexible process, and now it's an overdog in the next class up?

Fine, Travis, if that's what you want, then let's call a spade a spade and put in full-up COMPETITION ADJUSTMENTS, most certainly based on on-track performance. Because that's what you're promoting!

If you want competitive parity, then let's drop the facade of 'no competition adjustments' and do it right, with such things as lead trophies, annual weight adjustments and single-inlet restrictors.

If you're goal of "correctness" is to have even on-track parity, then let's do it "correctly" instead of pretending we're not. 'Cause what you're doing now with your subjective pre-adjustments is nothing but competition adjustments with a set of frilly pink panties to look good... - GA

call it competition adjustments if you want, i don't care. but there's a big difference between using the most objective, best information available to make a best effort attempt at getting a car within the WINDOW and throwing around 25lbs of lead because somebody won the ARRC & IT Fest.

you're not going to get rid of subjectivity in any class and have parity. fuck, parity doesn't even exist in anything but stuff like SRF. MY goal for IT is NOT to have perfect parity, because that objective absolutely does drive you towards BS like results based adjustments. you just make the best attempt at it you can, and if a mistake is made, i sure want the ability to go back and fix a class-destroying car.

jjjanos

07-29-2008, 11:06 AM

I want a fully objective mathematical system, free of human frailties and political tinkering.

will create an overdog

At which point we say, "sorry, it's up a class you go."

Sorry, that's contradictory. You no longer have a fully objective mathematical system the moment you move a car that is an overdog.

If the process is a FOMS, then what you have is a process that takes inputs and determines the class/weight of the car and there it sits. If the process says that a Toyota Gofast's minimum weight is 200 pounds, then reliance on a FOMS says the weight gets set at 200 pounds, period.

In the above, the FOMS clearly has problems and that would suggest recalibrating and estimating the parameters and model without the use of a Gofast specific adder. I.e. The reason WHY the Gofast doesn't fit needs to be added to the FOMS.

What you are suggesting is a FOMS unless "we" don't like/believe the outcome... and that's pretty much what we have now. (Except we only use it for overdogs. Classified underdogs just die stillborn.)

Greg Amy

07-29-2008, 11:22 AM

Guys, I'm not going to sit here and argue this with you point-by-point. If the majority of the SCCA membership wants to delegate responsibility to a group of 6 (7? 8?) guys sitting around a virtual table, tossing around "known information" and using their own "subjective judgment" to determine the competition parity of an entire category, then have at it. I really don't want any part of it.

But I can assure you I've been around long enough to know that it never has, and never will, work long term. Been there, done that.

BTW, how's that "parity" thing working out in Spec Miata? What's that, just three different cars, right? Everyone's happy, right? I'm sure working with dozens of different cars per class, all with wildly varying engines, drivetrains, gear sets, brakes, and chassis designs is just as easy...right?

Just sayin'.

- GA

lateapex911

07-29-2008, 11:35 AM

One comment about the whole "move it up (down) a class" concept.

Assuming the car can make weight in the new class, it will, in theory, be a pointless move. Why? Because the process assumptions that failed it in it's current class will fail it in the new class.

Think about the RX-7 in ITA. People have suggested moving it to ITB. As the owner of one, I say, "Why bother"? Here's the issue. It's too slow for A, and adding 300 pounds of weight and removing wheel width is, no surprise, going to make it slower...and lo and behold, when it all averages out, it will be in the same relative spot in B it is in A....essentially uncompetitive.

The issue is that the process fails that particular car, for whatever reason.

I'll admit, I have a problem classing a new car when there is a significant suspicion that the stock HP rating is wrong. Manufacturers do that from time to time for various reasons, (tax in Japan, Insurance in other areas, bragging rights, whatever), but the effect on the classing is significant.

An ITB car that has the HP rated low/high by 6 Hp will weigh over one hundred pounds off. If we have two cars like that, but one is high, and the other low, the difference is over 200 pounds. That's a significant number in ITB!

Now, personally, I'm mostly concerned when the number is rated low from the factory, as fixing a mistake like that is very very hard, and can result in real damage to the class, the program and the club. people get seriously upset when they get reeled back in. (Witness the huge hit ITS took, then the loss of drivers/cars/members when the E36 was 'corrected").

I see both sides of the consistent/get it right debate, and would love to have a system that could automatically accommodate for discrepancies, such as incorrect stock hp ratings. I wonder if there could be a set of standards that would need to be met in order to invoke certain non standard changes/adjustments to account for such issues, that would eliminate the human/political factor.

gran racing

07-29-2008, 11:41 AM

So do I. At which point we say, "sorry, it's up a class you go."

How do you come to that conclusion though? It sounds like through on-track performance? If it's only though a 100% repeatable formula I can't see any other way.

I also would love to protect against the previous blow-up of IT (IMO) with the CRXs, ITA Tegs, and BWMs in ITS.

I understand where you're coming from with a long-term view. Right now I feel comfortable with the ITAC making subjective decisions, but what about the next group?

tnord

07-29-2008, 11:45 AM

BTW, how's that "parity" thing working out in Spec Miata? What's that, just three different cars, right? Everyone's happy, right? I'm sure working with dozens of different cars per class, all with wildly varying engines, drivetrains, gear sets, brakes, and chassis designs is just as easy...right?

Just sayin'.

- GA

except the objective of the two classes is fundamentally different. in SM, the "parity" has to be exactly perfect, hence the +/- 25lb, shockhat, RP, ratio, etc bullshit year-to-year, because the target is to get all cars perfectly equal at the RO's track, while still maintaining solid parity at every track. THAT's a competition adjustment.

having a performance WINDOW as a target is different. with this philosophy, you can macro-manage a much larger group of cars, with a larger margin of error, and not get backed into true competition adjustments. there's just no way to achieve anything close to "parity" across this scope of vehicles without a certain level of subjectivity.

jjjanos

07-29-2008, 11:48 AM

I wonder if there could be a set of standards that would need to be met in order to invoke certain non standard changes/adjustments to account for such issues, that would eliminate the human/political factor.

In a word.... no.

In a sentence... Probably not. Determining the published versus stock discrepancy will be full of human/poliltical inputs and then there would be how much more can this car get and then there would be... it has no torque versus it'll pull a train....

JeffYoung

07-29-2008, 11:53 AM

We have a process in place that works with a fairly minimum amount of subjectivity. All we can do is put good people in place to continue to implement it. There is always a chance that the train could go off the tracks.

But that same chance exists with a purely objective entirely rigid objective process. ITS E36......ITA CRX......ITA RX7 without understanding hp potential...etc...etc...etc.

How do you come to that conclusion though? It sounds like through on-track performance? If it's only though a 100% repeatable formula I can't see any other way.

I also would love to protect against the previous blow-up of IT (IMO) with the CRXs, ITA Tegs, and BWMs in ITS.

I understand where you're coming from with a long-term view. Right now I feel comfortable with the ITAC making subjective decisions, but what about the next group?

shwah

07-29-2008, 12:02 PM

I think the original 3 points are important, but I move consistency to the top. We should be able to look at similar cars, and their specs, and the racing weights should make sense.

I also think that we do need a mechanism to 'make it right' when a mistake is made. I don't care what the semantics are - call it competition adjustment if you like (I personally don't mind if our class, and fellow drivers are deemed important enough to justify the effort required to make the cars competitive with each other). We need to enable the club to react to the next 325 ITS situation.

What I don't want is annual specification shuffles based on the previous years results. Maybe allow a maximum of one or two 'adjustments' to any given spec line weight. Give the ITAC a chance to fix mistakes, but don't open the door for perpetual tweaking. Also control the volume of 'please run this car through the process again' requests - (speaking of, is my request dead on the vine?)

Finally - wherever this ends up - it needs to be applied to all of the cars, not just incomimg iron. IMO the Great Realignment was botched, and that is why the ITAC is dealing with so many review requests today. If the process is good enough for the cars you are classing now, it is good enough for the cars that are on the books - even if they are only 50# off (or 110# off ;) ), especially given a method to correct mistakes.

DavidM

07-29-2008, 03:28 PM

This is a good discussion. The issue of transparency is obviously where I've had my problems with this process. If that gets addressed then I personally would be happier.

The issue of subjectivity is a hard one and has been discussed in various guises on here before. I agree with Greg and have said similar things about PCAs being applied to cars whether they're being called PCAs or not. I also agree that just objectively following the formula is probably going to result in some cars being better than others and some cars being worse. The question is whether or not that matters. Greg says no, others say yes. If it matters then how do you go about injecting subjectivity into the process. Do you attempt to do it during the initial classification based on the perceived capabilities of the car, which are based on some form of "knowledge"? This has many issues as Greg points out and has been discussed. Do you wait and base it upon the cars performance? Which also has many issues. Do you do both?

Inject subjectivity into the process and there's always going to be room for discussion and people questioning how the car's weight was determined. The only way to prevent this is to do as Greg says and run the formula and let car weights fall where they fall. Your car can't make the assumed 25% increase in power. Too bad. Your car makes more than 25%. Good for you. There's a nice simplicity to it. Of course, you'd have to go back and redo all the cars that got subjectively adjusted during the grand re-weighting.

The purist in me says run the formula and go. The utopianist in me says subjectivity is needed to level the playing field as best we can. I personally think most people would like to see an attempt at leveling the playing field even if they know it's flawed and won't be perfect.

The key to me is to have it out in the open how a car's weight is derived. If it's thought a car can make 30% over stock because it has some whiz bang cam then put it down in writing somewhere so that people understand it. People are going to complain about a car's weight no matter what once subjectivity is introduced. If it's in the open, though, people won't mistrust the process.

David

JoshS

07-29-2008, 03:53 PM

Yes, you should use known information in classing. That is what the multiplier is for and was used for many cars classed now and is correct.

Unfortunately, there is not a consensus about what the multiplier "is for." That's what the argument is largely all about that prompted Kirk's post.

gran racing

07-29-2008, 03:56 PM

Your car makes more than 25%. Good for you.

What if we have two models where this happens on a more significant manner, such as a low published HP number and is quite receptive to engine builds? This stands the chance of really hurting a class.

How would the S2000 have been handled? Should a strict 25% performance gain have been used when it is well known how close to the max those engines already are stock?

I pretty much agree with what Andy said.

JeffYoung

07-29-2008, 04:15 PM

Ditto. I see the best case being:

1. a strict process, with

2. a limited amount of subjectivity to fix obvious and proven erros; and, perhaps most importantly

3. an ITAC culture of restraint and limited use of the tools to fix those errors.

JeffYoung

07-29-2008, 04:22 PM

Same here. I agree with Dave/Andy/others.

And what about, for instance, the subjective factor for front wheel drive? We all acknowledge that FWD is a handicap, more so as power increases. Ok.....so we just discount that entirely? Known factor. Hurts cars in S.

So we stick to the process and take out the weight break given to the FWDrivers?

tnord

07-29-2008, 04:43 PM

if you want the IT classification to reach it's maximum potential in terms of participants and success, a subjective element must be present.

the subjective factor contributes to the core elements that make up the Improved Touring "identity."
1) diversity. lots of cars wouldn't be classed at remotely competitive weights, so people wouldn't build them.
2) relative equal performance. read: no overdogs. without subbjective factors you end up with one or two car classes, and the class looks far less intriguing to outsiders, in turn, smaller grids.
3) long term stability. heck, i have more faith that IT will be around in the same basic form in the future than will SM. this makes IT an attractive place for people who don't want to change classes/cars every couple years.

bottom line is that i think you'd have smaller grids, less diversity, and a more uncertain future if the subjective factor was removed.

Bill Miller

07-29-2008, 04:44 PM

OK, well, I think we're back to the old argument that I've had with more than one or two of the ITAC members over the years. And my position hasn't changed: pure objectivity is key, let the chips fall where they may.

ANY time you try to "adjust" the process based on "known" information, you're actually breaking the process. Why? Because you're making decisions based on what you THINK you know. Problem is, you DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS. In reality, you have very few of the facts. So, what you end up doing is chasing the outliers, when - in fact - you haven't caught the real outliers, you've only caught the outliers that weren't smart enough to play the game.

Then, you want to pretend that someone is being honest when they say they've done ALL THEY CAN DO to get xxx ponies out of an engine, and want an adjustment? Yeah, right...

So you are, in effect, making competition adjustments based on results, before there's even any results. Those initial "results" may not be on-track results, but they're results nonetheless. You're trying to pretend you're not doing comp adjustments, when you really are. And then you're not backing that up in the end.

You're trying to pretend you can predict the end results without actually correcting those mistakes that will inevitable happen.

Blech, blah, ptooey!!! Honestly and frankly, guys, don't know SHIT, you only know what people choose to let you know.

Sorry, but you're not nearly as smart individually or collectively as the whole of the population you're trying to "govern". Central Planning doesn't work guys.

Plus, you won't use the intestinal fortitude to back up that Central Planning by adjusting based on on-track results...so, in effect, you're trying to govern the outcomes without actually governing the outcomes.

It. Will. Fail. Always has, always will. - GA

I think you pretty much nailed it Greg. And here's an important line from Kirk's post

Note here however that I'm specifically talking about placing cars in classes and determining what they should weigh - not about changes allowed by the rules.

Please take note of the bolded section.

Go with what they should weigh, based on published data (from the mfg) on a stock example. Trust what the process says the weight should be, and go with it. The mechanism is already in place to correct variances and bring outliers closer to the middle, it's called PCA's. This is what should have been done during 'the great realignment'. All cars would have been considered newly classified, and PCA's would have taken it from there.

As Greg said, once you start introducing subjective inputs into the initial classification model, you're making defacto competition adjustments before the car even turns a wheel. Addressing cases where the process doesn't "get it right" are already built into PCA's. Use that!

And I'll extend the consistency component a bit further. Similar cars w/ similar characteristics should be in the same class. Either that, or create dual classifications for those cars that could go either way, and let the membership decide where they want to race them.

Objectivity is key, until such time as there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the whole is not the sum of the parts (either up or down). An important aside to this, is that once a variance is identified, it needs to be addressed in a timely manner.

JeffYoung

07-29-2008, 04:57 PM

Bill, good to see you posting again.

shwah

07-29-2008, 05:37 PM

I like what Bill said.

ekim952522000

07-29-2008, 05:53 PM

A rookie racers opinion. I would like to see the same process applied to all cars (the FWD weight reduction is fine as long as it is applied to all FWD cars, just like the double wishbone adder is applied to all cars with double wishbones) Even if it looks like it will make a car a over/underdog then if it does then adjust the weight.

On a side note I have been lurking around these forums for a while and have not been able to figure the exact formula that is used to class cars. Is there somewhere that says double wishbone gets 50lbs, front wheel drive gets - 100lbs and list all the possible adders/subtractors and list what things the ITAC adjusts on each car?

Andy Bettencourt

07-29-2008, 05:53 PM

Yes, we have PCA's to correct a "CRX" if we have to...but why waste a couple years and tons of dollars (non-"CRX" dollars) asking people to run against a car they can't compete with? It does the class and the category NO GOOD. They will find places where they perceive there to be more parity.

I do not believe turning a blind eye with the intent for correction helps anyone. I believe in trying to get it right proactively in the most ethical manner possible. *I* think it leads to a much more stable situation from the beginning, the inside and the outside. PCA's are still there to fix a screw up...but WHY HAVE THEM if you know they are coming?

Like I said, I will try my best to get it right on the front end and take my lumps.

ekim952522000

07-29-2008, 05:56 PM

Hmmmmm Andy's fix it before it's broke message is winning me over as long as I can see the math with how each cars weight was came up with.

dickita15

07-29-2008, 06:18 PM

The purist in me says run the formula and go. The utopianist in me says subjectivity is needed to level the playing field as best we can. I personally think most people would like to see an attempt at leveling the playing field even if they know it's flawed and won't be perfect.

nicely put

JeffYoung

07-29-2008, 06:51 PM

It is very well put.

Knestis

07-29-2008, 09:08 PM

>> ...Also control the volume of 'please run this car through the process again' requests - (speaking of, is my request dead on the vine?)

:happy204:

LOL - you can tell all your friends that your request actually helped precipitate revisiting some big questions among the ITAC. We kind of reached a point with several "review" requests of cars that members didn't think made sense, where we couldn't actually define specs for them under the process without hashing through consensus on some of the philosophical issues that have come up here. Your request is VERY MUCH still alive, albeit tabled pending discussion of some first principles.

This happens every once in a while. Processes that are working OK get to a point where they have to accommodate anomalous situations, so what seemed like they would be simple specific decisions become fodder for hashing out bigger issues.

I'm NOT going to get in the business of trying to convince anyone of anything in this discussion since I TRULY wanted to generate discussion for input. (Welcome back from me too, Bill!) Suffice to say that (a) I am far closer to the position than Greg describes than other positions, and (b) I am in the distinct minority on the ITAC. In the interest of full disclosure, I THINK that there is a substantial proportion of the membership that shares this orientation but if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

A few thoughts, in response to points raised...

** The FWD subtractor is applied absolutely. As is the A-arm suspension adder. Those are binary, yes/no things that are very objective. More subjectively, we can consider torque, brakes, and transmission ratios. There are no tight guidelines for applying these tweaks.

** We are PRETTY good at applying the engine "power multipliers" consistently, although there have been some questions recently involving consistency over the life of the "new" system.

** We've implemented an internal record-keeping system to document the math applied to any cars subject to members' requests for initial classification or review. This is a HUGE step forward and in hindsight, a lot of questions and issues could have been avoided were there an archive of processes applied during the Great Realignment. Hindsight is 20/20 and volunteer organizations often suffer from a lack of institutional memory.

** I have a STRONG belief that a lot of our perceptions about what kind of car is fast are influenced by who builds and races them. For the life of me, I can't remember EVER seeing a crappy, POS ITS e36 BMW running on free take-off Toyos. Anyone who saw me learning Rd Atl weekend before last wouldn't have run out and built a MkIII Golf because it was the car to have. The Egg wouldn't be thought of as a potential winner today, absent the effort put into the tGA/Kessler example. Car looks like a good choice, serious racers build one, car/driver wins, people put WAY too much stock in the make/model of the car. This influences "what we know" more than most of us are willing to accept.

** I don't believe that transparency has to be linked to a strict formula. Publishing ONE way to establish weights for all cars is no easier/harder than publishing all of the assumptions and math that go into each individual listing. 99% of what you'd all see is no surprise and a clever person with a calculator can infer the math from the new listings.

** A consistent formulaic process also doesn't rule out using different factors for different physical attributes (e.g., engine age and architecture). It's not necessary to just apply a 25% multiplier across all cars, for example. We manage this pretty well already, albeit not with 100% repeatability across make/model examples. Documentation will help this situation over time.

** The issues complicate our lives enormously where we have attributes specific to only one make/model (e.g., the rotaries), or where we think we know something other than the basic assumptions (e.g., the 1st generation MR2).

This IS a great conversation. Than you all.

K

seckerich

07-29-2008, 10:46 PM

Andy Bettencourt

07-29-2008, 10:58 PM

JeffYoung

07-30-2008, 01:55 AM

Kirk, you said:

** The FWD subtractor is applied absolutely. As is the A-arm suspension adder. Those are binary, yes/no things that are very objective. More subjectively, we can consider torque, brakes, and transmission ratios. There are no tight guidelines for applying these tweaks.

While the FW subtractor is applied absolutely, its amount was decided subjectively.

Not quibbling, just pointing out that unless the system is ONLY stock hp X expected IT gain X class hp/weight, there is subjectivity in all of it. Hell, in a sense, there is subjectivity is picking manufacturer hp ratings (which can be just as wrong as dynos) as the base.

I do personally believe the subjectivity is the minimum required and that there is enough aversion to using it on the ITAC that you guys have on the whole produced a great result. IT is thriving again. 26 S cars at Daytona in a week and a half, Porsches, Datsuns, BMWs, Mazdas, Olds, Triumphs.....

dickita15

07-30-2008, 05:36 AM

seckerich

07-30-2008, 07:15 AM

To this I say, well put.

(PS: Saw your old car at WGI this weekend...nice!)

Thanks Andy. Jeff McCandless is having a great time with it and getting faster every week. I miss it so much I bought one to race this week. Plan is to do the VIR 13hr race. I miss IT enough I will probably build a new ITS RX7 this winter. Planned to build the RX8 when I sold it but you know how that turned out.:rolleyes:

Andy Bettencourt

07-30-2008, 07:42 AM

Jeff the adders you point out were certainly determined in a subjective manner but they do pass the test of Repeatability - Consistency – Transparency.
They can be documented and put in a formula. The question is how do you deal with the ones that are not documented. Torque, ratios, mid-engine, aero and such. Can you build a formula that actually work for all these variations or is there a point at which subjective opinions should be applied for the heath of the category?

I think this is why we call it a process and not a formula. The adders for torque, transmission, etc are documented in terms of the weight applied but they are certainly added in a subjective manner. The thought process is to apply them when the charateristic is an anomoly within the class.

I don't think anyone would argue that IT is at it's healthiest in years...so I challenge the "it doesn't work, it can't work, it will never work" statements.

gran racing

07-30-2008, 08:19 AM

If HP is viewed with a more formula-like approach, why shouldn't torque? Maybe this is one item that needs to be tweeked with the process.

spnkzss

07-30-2008, 08:30 AM

If HP is viewed with a more formula-like approach, why shouldn't torque? Maybe this is one item that needs to be tweeked with the process.

+1

Fastfred92

07-30-2008, 08:54 AM

>>
** I don't believe that transparency has to be linked to a strict formula. Publishing ONE way to establish weights for all cars is no easier/harder than publishing all of the assumptions and math that go into each individual listing. 99% of what you'd all see is no surprise and a clever person with a calculator can infer the math from the new listings.

K

That, in my mind, is the answer to transparency. Each car should have a well defined, and published process that could include comments from the board as to how they determined it's final weight. No smoke and mirrors with that approach..

seckerich

07-30-2008, 09:00 AM

HP + TQ / 2 = Power Number

Run a few cars through the process with that formula and see how close you come without the tweaking for torque. Insert the power number in place of the HP number.

Andy Bettencourt

07-30-2008, 09:42 AM

HP + TQ / 2 = Power Number

Run a few cars through the process with that formula and see how close you come without the tweaking for torque. Insert the power number in place of the HP number.
I have tried it. It unfortunately takes the perceived balance we have now and kills it.

The low torque/high revvers get lighter (RX-7) and the big torque low-revvers get heavier. If we feel there is a gross inequity in what is happening now, I can see going that route - but I don't.

Bill Miller

07-30-2008, 09:48 AM

I think with the changes made in the past few years IT is one of the most stable, competitive classes in club racing. IT is growing because we have a limited rule set that makes 80-90% of the classed cars possible winners. Some will take more time and money than others but it can be done. Sticking to a strict, no options formula would kill all that. The purist think they are sticking to their moral high ground but it will be at the expense of the "not car of the year" driver. You will create underdogs that will quit, and overdogs that make the rest quit. All that will be left are those that don't care about winning, or those that buy the car to have. Sound familiar??? I think we were headed that direction in a few classes not long ago. Use your best information, do your best to get it right, and fix what you screw up. Thats all we can ask. Only an idiot ignores the obvious.:p

Steve,

It's never been about a 'strict, no options formula', at least not w/ me. From the very beginning, I've advocated a defined model w/ adjustments where warranted (I'm pretty sure Kirk can vouch for this). I think that the whole notion of Prod-style competition adjustments has left such a bad taste in people's mouths that they don't want to see any kind of post-classification adjustment, as it will surely lead to Prod-style competition adjustments by next week. If you don't think that's the case, just look at the language that's used. 'Performance Compensation Adjustments', people don't even want to hear the term 'competition adjustments' in IT. But point of fact is, that any deviation from an objective model, either before or after classification, is in fact a competition adjustment.

Let me throw out a hypothetical (maybe not so much) situation. Let's fast-forward to the time when ABS is allowed on IT cars (and if you don't think it will be someday, you're kidding yourself). So, it's decided that cars w/ ABS can now run it. The ITAC sets a given weight amount for an 'adder'. Cars w/ ABS now get another XX lbs added to their process weight. Now, fast-forward another year or two. Let's say that it turns out that XX wasn't the right number (doesn't matter if it was too high or too low, just that it wasn't right. Granted, it will be easier to make a case if it's too low). What do you do? Do you go back and say "It has been determined that XX# for ABS is incorrect, we're changing it to YY#."? What else would you call that besides a competition adjustment?

I do not believe turning a blind eye with the intent for correction helps anyone. I believe in trying to get it right proactively in the most ethical manner possible. *I* think it leads to a much more stable situation from the beginning, the inside and the outside. PCA's are still there to fix a screw up...but WHY HAVE THEM if you know they are coming?

I'll buy that Andy, but if you're going to take that approach, I think you need to take it a step further. You need to document what the 'pure' process weight is, and what the adjustments are, and why they're being applied. In essence, you're doing a PCA at the same time you're classifying the car. Which is what you're already doing today, when you're deviating from process weight. It's just that it would be all out in the open. You guys have already put in place most (all?) of the tools that you need to do this. Use them. This goes to the whole transparency thing.

I'd like to make a comment on the subject of 'adders'. I think the ITAC did a great job in developing what's seemingly become a good, solid classification model that has gotten the cars pretty damn close. I think a way to refine that is to switch from a set weight amount for a given adder, to a percentage of car weight. To me, 50# on a 3000# car that makes 200 hp is a lot different than 50# on a 2000# car that makes 120 hp. I know this issue was discussed when we were working on the ITR car list. IIRC, it was felt that a 50# 'negative adder' for FWD may not be enough, given the makeup of ITR. I think that would be a step towards better refining the model.

Bottom line is, you'll never make everyone happy. However, if you develop something that addresses the three areas that Kirk lists, you'll have something that you can point to and say that it's as fair as possible. If people want closer parity, let them run spec cars. Eventually you get to a point of diminishing return, and you've gotten to the point in the S/N ratio that driver ability is the dominant factor.

And thanks for the kind words guys. As you can see, this is still something I believe in.

Andy Bettencourt

07-30-2008, 09:58 AM

I'll buy that Andy, but if you're going to take that approach, I think you need to take it a step further. You need to document what the 'pure' process weight is, and what the adjustments are, and why they're being applied. In essence, you're doing a PCA at the same time you're classifying the car. Which is what you're already doing today, when you're deviating from process weight. It's just that it would be all out in the open. You guys have already put in place most (all?) of the tools that you need to do this. Use them. This goes to the whole transparency thing.

I'd like to make a comment on the subject of 'adders'. I think the ITAC did a great job in developing what's seemingly become a good, solid classification model that has gotten the cars pretty damn close. I think a way to refine that is to switch from a set weight amount for a given adder, to a percentage of car weight. To me, 50# on a 3000# car that makes 200 hp is a lot different than 50# on a 2000# car that makes 120 hp. I know this issue was discussed when we were working on the ITR car list. IIRC, it was felt that a 50# 'negative adder' for FWD may not be enough, given the makeup of ITR. I think that would be a step towards better refining the model.

Bottom line is, you'll never make everyone happy. However, if you develop something that addresses the three areas that Kirk lists, you'll have something that you can point to and say that it's as fair as possible. If people want closer parity, let them run spec cars. Eventually you get to a point of diminishing return, and you've gotten to the point in the S/N ratio that driver ability is the dominant factor.

And this is what Kirk is documenting on every call. HP, multiplier, adders, final weight.

I also agree it should be % based. There is discussion right now (debate) about running every car through the process and setting at its 'exact' weight instead of the +/-100 and it's ok deal. This would be a good time to implement something like the % idea...but its a tough road on that deal.

tnord

07-30-2008, 10:10 AM

i'm with bill for the most part on the second half of the message.

i don't get as caught up in language, maybe because i haven't been around IT that long, so i really don't care what is or isn't a "competition adjustment." all i care about is that you don't add weight just because some car wins the ARRC or ITTC like they do for the RO's.

i guess i care less about the transparancy thing than others do, because from my view all this documentation creates substantial add'l work for the ITAC. yes, it would be nice for it all to be on the books and in the open, but it's still just a few guys volunteering their time.

RacerBowie

07-30-2008, 10:19 AM

And this is what Kirk is documenting on every call. HP, multiplier, adders, final weight.

I also agree it should be % based. There is discussion right now (debate) about running every car through the process and setting at its 'exact' weight instead of the +/-100 and it's ok deal. This would be a good time to implement something like the % idea...but its a tough road on that deal.

Even though it would be a LOT of work, I think running every car through and doing the reset is important. No bottom limits for "when it gets adjusted" either. If the weight changes by 5 lbs then the spec weight changes.

Get everything on the same page, so to speak.

jjjanos

07-30-2008, 10:26 AM

The low torque/high revvers get lighter (RX-7) and the big torque low-revvers get heavier. If we feel there is a gross inequity in what is happening now, I can see going that route - but I don't.

Ummmm.... this result surprised you? You add an adjustment for torque and those without it HAVE to get lighter and those with it HAVE to get heavier.
Given that the RX-7 isn't a competitive car at its current weight, I would say taking weight off is the desired outcome.

The two questions for me are 1. Does it maintain balance? and 2. Just how many cars have this problem?

1. There's no point in upsetting the apple cart if it throws the baby out with the bath water and turns the world on its head.

2. We've got the RX7 and maybe the S2000. If that's all we've got out there, then the juice ain't worth the squeeze. Mucking about with this has a high probability of gaining carnal knowledge of a canine without a compensating gain.

Bill Miller

07-30-2008, 10:27 AM

And this is what Kirk is documenting on every call. HP, multiplier, adders, final weight.

I also agree it should be % based. There is discussion right now (debate) about running every car through the process and setting at its 'exact' weight instead of the +/-100 and it's ok deal. This would be a good time to implement something like the % idea...but its a tough road on that deal.

Andy,

You've never come across as someone that runs from a good challenge, especially if it's the right thing to do. It's too bad that it didn't get done during the great realignment, but that's ancient history now. Just because it wasn't done then doesn't mean that it can never be done. Maybe you can get Nike to be the official ITAC sponsor, Just Do It! :D

i'm with bill for the most part on the second half of the message.

Now that's a scary thought! :D

tnord

07-30-2008, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by tnord
i'm with bill for the most part on the second half of the message.

Now that's a scary thought! :D

crap, do i have a reputation over here or something?

Andy Bettencourt

07-30-2008, 11:13 AM

Bill,

I am for it.

JJJ,

I am talking about the already very competitive 13B in ITS. Run some numbers...the balance goes away...trust me. (As long as we can agree we have balance now)

ekim952522000

07-30-2008, 11:53 AM

HP + TQ / 2 = Power Number

Run a few cars through the process with that formula and see how close you come without the tweaking for torque. Insert the power number in place of the HP number.

So just for fun I tried this out.

I did (HP + TQ) / 2 * 15
PWR is the Power number.
WEIGHT is the weight the formula gives you
ITR is the current weight.

..........................HP TQ PWR WEIGHT ITR DIFF
ACURA INTEGRA TYPE R --- 195 130 163 2438 2535 -98
ACURA RSX -------------- 200 142 171 2565 2665 -100
HONDA PRELUDE 97-01 ---- 200 156 178 2670 2640 +30
FORD TAURUS SHO -------- 220 200 210 3150 2890 +260
TOYOT CELICA GT-S ------ 180 130 155 2325 2380 -55
ACURA LEGEND ----------- 230 206 218 3270 3135 +135
S2000 F20C ------------- 240 163 202 3023 3005 +18
TOYOT SUPRA 97 --------- 220 210 215 3225 3220 +5
99 CAMARO -------------- 200 225 213 3188 2815 +373
BMW 330 02 ------------- 225 214 220 3293 3290 +3
NISSAN 300ZX ----------- 220 198 209 3135 3250 -115
BMW 325IS -------------- 189 181 185 2775 2765 +10
RX-8 (just for fun)----- 232 159 196 2933

Some are close some are very different.

EDIT: Sorry first one was messed up forgot the ( ) in excel =P

jjjanos

07-30-2008, 12:11 PM

am talking about the already very competitive 13B in ITS.

My bad. Thought you meant the first gen RX7s.

gran racing

07-30-2008, 12:38 PM

But didn't the ITAC already use a subjective weight reduction when looking at that car?

Would there be a more appropriate formula to include torque? Do you have any insight how other organizations use torque when classing cars (beyond NASA and the US)?

seckerich

07-30-2008, 12:46 PM

See later post.

ekim952522000

07-30-2008, 12:52 PM

What is the percent they used? The results would be the same if the same percent was applied to every car.

seckerich

07-30-2008, 12:52 PM

So just for fun I tried this out.

I did (HP + TQ) / 2 * 15
PWR is the Power number.
WEIGHT is the weight the formula gives you
ITR is the current weight.

..........................HP TQ PWR WEIGHT ITR DIFF
ACURA INTEGRA TYPE R --- 195 130 163 2438 2535 -98
ACURA RSX -------------- 200 142 171 2565 2665 -100
HONDA PRELUDE 97-01 ---- 200 156 178 2670 2640 +30
FORD TAURUS SHO -------- 220 200 210 3150 2890 +260
TOYOT CELICA GT-S ------ 180 130 155 2325 2380 -55
ACURA LEGEND ----------- 230 206 218 3270 3135 +135
S2000 F20C ------------- 240 163 202 3023 3005 +18
TOYOT SUPRA 97 --------- 220 210 215 3225 3220 +5
99 CAMARO -------------- 200 225 213 3188 2815 +373
BMW 330 02 ------------- 225 214 220 3293 3290 +3
NISSAN 300ZX ----------- 220 198 209 3135 3250 -115
BMW 325IS -------------- 189 181 185 2775 2765 +10
RX-8 (just for fun)----- 232 159 196 2933

Some are close some are very different.

EDIT: Sorry first one was messed up forgot the ( ) in excel =P

Try this for all the cars listed.

Power Number x 1.25 x 11.25 (for ITR)

You will see a lot of cars come in line without the tweaking. Most actually make sense. You will quickly see those that had the expected gain in IT trim changed stand out.

Ron Earp

07-30-2008, 01:01 PM

I thought torque would shake out in this discussion sooner or later.

When Jeff Young and I put together the tentative ITR proposal a couple of years back we accumulated quite a mass of data for the cars. We developed our own “process” to class the cars that was based on stock hp and the hp/weight ratio target for the class. We used our own estimations for percent increases for the ITR cars (not the same increase for all cars) and came up with a rough skeleton for ITR. This was then submitted to the ITAC and the correct IT process applied to the draft to generate the real ITR class list.

One thing we noticed while creating this draft was we didn’t include torque in the classification process. In fact, beyond an adder in the IT classes torque doesn’t figure prominently in IT classification process either.

Torque became a paramount issue when we did the ITR Pony Car proposal for the Mustangs and Camaros. These are motors that make a lot of torque but don’t make class leading hp (at least not in ITR trim). If torque isn’t taken into consideration we could get these cars classed incorrectly.

Shown below is a graph taken from the Pony Car Proposal. It plots the ITR Classed Weight versus Stock HP for a few of the “heavy hitters” in ITR. You can see that the relationship is fairly linear – an increase in stock hp results in an increase in classed weight. The coefficient of determination is only 0.58 but that isn’t too bad for an imperfect process.

http://www.gt40s.com/images/temp/ITRhpplot.jpg

We could then use the linear regression model to calculate ITR weights:

Weight = 7.927 * (Stock HP) + 1295.

If you do this you’d see cars such as the 330i lose weight (3118 lbs, a drop of 170 lbs), and the 944 S2 gain weight (2942lbs, a gain of almost 100lbs). And the RX8, where would it come in? 238 Stock HP would put it right at 3055 lbs according to the model. But Stock HP isn’t everything.

Also in the Pony Car Proposal is another interesting ITR graph. It is a plot of ITR Classed Weight versus Stock Torque for the same set of cars. And in this plot you can see that there is very little relationship between Classed Weight and Stock Torque. Effectively torque is not modeled in the ITR classing process. The coefficient of determination is only 0.0793 and the resulting model could not be used to predict Classed Weight based on torque with any accuracy.

http://www.gt40s.com/images/temp/ITRtorqueplot.jpg

The question becomes what to do? I think it fairly clear that we need to model torque in the classification process.

In the end there is only torque, hp is a construction we make to allow us to calculate how much work we can do from the twisting force. Maybe we need to use something along the lines of a summation of torque over RPM to come up with a Power Factor for a given car. That might be difficult because you’d need factory plots that show torque versus RPM and I know we couldn’t get that for most of the cars in ITS, ITA, ITB, and ITC. We probably could for ITR though.

The suggestion that Steve E. and others have posted is interesting. I’d like to compare that to some of the regression models produced by analyzing the current IT classes.

Knestis

07-30-2008, 01:33 PM

>> ...that any deviation from an objective model, either before or after classification, is in fact a competition adjustment.

I respectfully disagree. It's not WHETHER an adjustment is made. Nor (in the context of our reality) is it about WHEN it's made - since we're arguably fixing listing after the fact because they were, in the eyes of our current process and practices, mistakes.

The defining factor in the definition of "competition adjustment" (bleah!) is WHY the change is implemented. If it's implemented because of perceived competitiveness or performance, it IS - even if it's done proactively, at the time of initial specification.

If on the other hand, adjustments are made to weights/classing based on physical attributes of cars (engine architecture, brake size, whatever), then it's an entirely different thing.

This is my personal definition but I've arrived at it because it makes the most important distinction. Of course, when we get to the point where attributes are specific to individual make/model examples (again, rotaries), we get in a serious bind. And obviously, we have to define what influence various factors and values have on race weight subjectively, based on our understandings of how they influence performance. I get all that.

Point is, that arguing that OBDII 16v engines need a multiplier of X.XX vs. '70s smogged up POS carb'd cars need a different one results in tweaks to the entire process. Whereas arguing MY CAR needs X.XX and YOUR CAR should use a multiplier of Y.YY is counterproductive, disruptive, and creates an environment where people don't trust the system.

K

ON EDIT - I'm not really disagreeing with Bill, since we are both arguing for what he calls an "objective model." I'm disagreeing with some of the common arguments that any change = competition adjustment.

Knestis

07-30-2008, 01:36 PM

Remember that many low-torque cars have already received non-formulaic tweaks. This is going to influence "if we did" vs. "if we don't" comparisons of weights achieved considering torque in the formula.

K

lateapex911

07-30-2008, 01:37 PM

looks like Kirk and I hit on the same thought process regarding the competition adjustment quotes, as we were replying concurrently, but he types faster!

Interesting stuff here.

Some comments;

1- "Competition adjustments". I've read some posts that seem to qualify an "adder" (say the FWD adder) (which is actually a subtracter and varies by class) as a "competition adjustment" Well, no, I don't think so. Heck, if THAT is a competition adjustment, then so is anything we do to set a classification weight. The alternative would be to set the weight at curb weight minus X amount for items removed in a build like seats, etc, plus Y amount for the cage. Every car would weigh curb minus the net of X and Y.

And racing would suck, unless we got lucky with a few models.

The entire point of setting weights is to create competitive parity.

Now, in my eyes, adders that are assigned to architecture items like FWD or double wishbone or rotary engines are categorical, and get applied to ALL cars, and can't be considered "competition adjustments". To me, a comp adjustment occurs AFTER the car is racing, and is a result of that car performing in a manner that doesn't align with it's class.

I want to avoid those at all costs.

I see the need for post weight setting adjustments when:

-new information comes to light that shows the input to the process was originally wrong, and the new info creates a different output.
-an error was made in the use of the process.
-the car wasn't reviewed since it's initial weight setting in the Grand realignment

Now, in my eyes, I fell the current "line in the sand" for "close enough" is excessive, and I'd like to make changes for less weight. I feel that if one car is under, and another over, the delta could be significant.

I WOULD like to try to have set standards/protocols for adders. It's easy with FWD, the car either has it, or it doesn't, but it gets foggy when it's an adder for trans ratios.

As this process matures, it is getting fine tuned. It's successes are highlighting issues like that. It's a pretty good place to be actually. I think the ITAC will continue to refine it, but it gets pretty difficult to do, and the payoff gets smaller. Diminishing returns. I recall the original concept behind the Grand Realignement/class performance envelope/process concept was that 80% of the problems were being caused by 20% of the cars. I think we've taken care of that, and more. But hey, we're racers, we are always lookign for ways to improve and fine tune.

Torque is an issue thats been discussed and we've played with different power factors internally. I've come up with a few of them, but it's a work in progress. (The RX-7s are interesting anomalies. In ITS, the car was one of the "bogeys" for the performance window, and it got no change made to it. In ITA, the car has a conservative power number applied that is tough to reach. Porting has run rampant over the years in that car, and it's colored the masses, I think. Because that car wasn't the bogey for ITA, it's dismal torque (105 ft lbs) is it's undoing. Even applying a process that accounts for that is pointless, because the car can go no lower weight-wise. It's just one of those things, and the needs of the many are being served well by the process, so, se la vie)

In the end, I agree that tq could be folded into the process, but, it's complicated, and lets not forget that HP is merely a product of tq, and transmission ratios play am important role as well, and both are being accounted for.

JeffYoung

07-30-2008, 02:00 PM

Knestis

07-30-2008, 02:11 PM

Kirk/Bill, is your point that subjectivity during the initial classification process (or the first application of the process during the Great Realignment) is not a PCA?

If so, that I agree with. Subjectivity in the initial process I can tolerate and understand the need for it, along with the goal of keeping it to a minimum. It's those PCAs later in the game that should be very rare birds, if at all, and only to correct obvious known errors.

Hell, I'd argue that even the fix to the E36 in ITS and the CRX in ITA weren't PCAs. They were just subjecting those cars to the process for the first time.

Yup.

I'm all about terms. PCA's are a particular thing, different from a competition adjustment (bleah!), codified by the post-realignment ITCS. It's more about a process than a definition. I frankly think it weasel language and unhelpful. I don't even talk about them.

Adjustments to the PROCESS - even subjective ones - based on mechanical attributes of the cars are not competition adjustments in my eyes. Any change in response to perceptions of performance, evidenced by lap times, finishing positions, etc. absolutely IS a competition adjustment. Again - it's about the motivation.

It's a narrow distinction, I know...

K

Andy Bettencourt

07-30-2008, 02:13 PM

Hell, I'd argue that even the fix to the E36 in ITS and the CRX in ITA weren't PCAs. They were just subjecting those cars to the process for the first time.

Just to make sure history is correct:

The CRX was part of the great realignment...cars gained weight, cars lost weight. Not a PCA.

The E36 was NEVER listed at it's process weight in ITS. If it had, it would have been around 3220. The CRB took it upon themselves to use an SIR. I believe that was a PCA - and the only one ever used. No car ever run through the process has been the subject of a PCA, nor are there any being considered. Why? I say because the proactive subjectivity is working.

JeffYoung

07-30-2008, 02:22 PM

A narrow distinction I agree with, and to me anyway a very important one that distinguishes us from Prod.

IT circa 2003 (when I started) did not have the PCA excesses of Prod, which I liked, but it had obvious initial classification erros...which I didn't like (me! me! me!...lol).

If we can correct the latter (and I think we have) without get sucked into the tar pits of the former, then you guys have done your job.

And I think you have.

Xian

07-30-2008, 02:40 PM

Just to make sure history is correct:

The CRX was part of the great realignment...cars gained weight, cars lost weight. Not a PCA.

First, a big "Thanks!" to everyone online and on the ITAC who helps to keep IT growing and healthy :happy204:

Second, I thought the CRX received a "fudge factor" of additional weight due to "known" power potential? Yes? No? If yes, who/what defines how much additional weight to add?

Christian, who likes transparency...

seckerich

07-30-2008, 03:03 PM

I think you will find the only "fudge" is in the % gain in IT trim. Many cars with known high and low power gains got that. Most were dead on as the long term data was very well known.

GKR_17

07-30-2008, 03:12 PM

Maybe I should stop posting this because no one seems to listen...

A single torque value is not a good indication of the potential of an engine. The power transmitted to the ground at that instantaneous engine speed is what makes the car go. Horsepower is basically torque multiplied by RPM. Many of the cars with low torque are also turning higher revs, so they're still putting good power to the pavement.

What is really important is the full dyno plot combined with the transmission ratios, so you can see the actual power through the RPM range used on the track. One torque value doesn't come close to representing this. The max torque value may give some insight into the shape of the curve however. The hp curve on a high torque engine (TR-8 for example) may be very flat, while a low torque motor (S2000) has a relatively peaky power curve. What nearly everyone is missing here though is the transmission. Most of the cars with very peaky power curves also have much closer ratios in the transmission, so they still put similar power to the pavement.

Kirk mentions the adder for transmission. Has this ever been used? I see five cars in ITR with 6-speed transmissions, none show evidence of added weight because of better transmission ratios.

Acura RSX: 150 lbs subtracted (FWD and low torque?)
Honda S2000: 100 lbs subtracted (low torque)
Mazda Rx-8: 100 lbs subtracted (low torque)
Porsche 968: no adders
Toyota Celica GTS: 150 lbs subtracted (FWD and low torque?)

I'm ok with the subjective adder for torque as currently applied. It should not be used in the formula without the full power curve combined with the transmission ratios.

Bill Miller

07-30-2008, 03:21 PM

The defining factor in the definition of "competition adjustment" (bleah!) is WHY the change is implemented. If it's implemented because of perceived competitiveness or performance, it IS - even if it's done proactively, at the time of initial specification.

If on the other hand, adjustments are made to weights/classing based on physical attributes of cars (engine architecture, brake size, whatever), then it's an entirely different thing.

Kirk,

I'm not sure I see much of a difference in these two positions. One of the things I see here, is really a case of granularity. In the Prod world, they do it to a given make/model/engine. On the IT side it's based on physical attributes, and is not marque-specific. Only in very rare cases, can I see the need for anything down to the model-specific level of granularity, in IT. We do have something close though, in the fact that the rotaries can't port-match.

Kirk,

I'll submit this, there wasn't something about a given physical attribute that was perceived to be a competitive advantage/disadvantage, there would be no need for an adder/subtracter for it. Case in point. I seriously doubt any consideration is given to the difference between 2dr and 4dr cars.

I guess I'm falling into my old trap of slicing it a bit too fine. As I said, I'm all about the objectivity, repeatability, consistency, and transparency. I'd like it to just come down to a difference in driver ability, but I know that's a bit on the optimistic side.

JeffYoung

07-30-2008, 03:35 PM

Yeah, cars like mine and Chuck Baaders (325e) that make a ton of torque at low rpm get killed by the "power factor." The real reason is that on my motor anyway, a lot of that torque simply isn't usable.

The last dyno run I did I got nearly 200 ft lbs (198 I think) but it was DECLINING already at 3500 rmp or so when the dyno operator started the run. I may have as much usable torque in the actual racing rpm band as a Z car, or in the 150-170 range. Still a lot, but if you use my peak torque number, it's a bit misleading because, in fact, I never get to use it. Peak hp is a different story of course.

All of that said, I agree wtih Ron and Steve E. that a project for the ITAC in the future is a better torque model. If the work that I am doing with exhaust development and the FI setup does what I hope it to do -- move peak hp and tq up the rpm band -- then my car is probably going to need some process weight simply because the process (using my stock hp number of 133) doesn't account for what development does on this fairly quirky (for IT) motor.

As always, I'll post dyno numbers as soon as I get them.

Ron Earp

07-30-2008, 03:45 PM

Maybe I should stop posting this because no one seems to listen...

A single torque value is not a good indication of the potential of an engine.

I agree with you and also suggested a sum of torque over the RPM range used. This won't account for gearing and so on, but it'll give you a good idea of what the motor is capable of doing.

Getting this sort of data is another story. Probably available for most all ITR cars, but beyond that it'll be a crap shoot. Good luck finding factory Datsun torque curve data from 3000-7000 RPM for a 260Z.

Jeff, your old torque plot looked like this - drops like a rock:

lateapex911

07-30-2008, 04:13 PM

In the end, I agree that tq could be folded into the process, but, it's complicated, and lets not forget that HP is merely a product of tq, and transmission ratios play am important role as well, and both are being accounted for.

Maybe I should stop posting this because no one seems to listen...

A single torque value is not a good indication of the potential of an engine. The power transmitted to the ground at that instantaneous engine speed is what makes the car go. Horsepower is basically torque multiplied by RPM. Many of the cars with low torque are also turning higher revs, so they're still putting good power to the pavement.

What is really important is the full dyno plot combined with the transmission ratios, so you can see the actual power through the RPM range used on the track. .

Hey, I'm listening!!!

I've looked at and tried several models, but as you point out, it's not that simple. And we do currently look at, and try to account for the torque/trans situation, so any further mods to the process have to be bullet proof... and lacking the full data, that's a tall order.

tnord

07-30-2008, 04:18 PM

it sounds like the level of detail people want in the classification process is moving too far away from the KISS principle to me. we're not recreating the Black-Scholes model for racing here. i think if you try and fine tune it too much, people's expectations change, and you will get many more requests for this or that in order for them to be competitive.

we're throwing darts, and as long as we hit the board everything is A-OK with me. it doesn't have to be a bulls-eye.

lateapex911

07-30-2008, 04:34 PM

Travis, I agree.

But. The issue at play in my mind is the adders, and the consistent application of them.

Lets say there's a car spec'ed at 2500. We run the process on it, (Let's say it never was carefully scrutinized in the GR), and the process spits out 2370. (So the car is 130 pounds heavy as listed) But, there is discussion that one of the subjective adders needs to be applied, at 50 pounds. Split decision, but the weight is added. Now it's 2420. THAT new weight is within 80 of it's spec weight, so it stays put.

Car B is out there, same situation. There's no request to run the process, but if there was, it would turn out to be light, by oh, say 95 pounds. No change! net net on that is that the cars compete, and the delta is almost two hundred pounds, and that's not considering the adder debate. In nearly half the ITACs eyes, it's even further off. That's a significant nut to haul around in ITC, B and even A and S.

I think that things like adders that are subjective are fine, and truly needed, but that we need to be very careful to apply them consistently. And I'd like to see the line in the sand drawn closer to center to minimize the delta...yea, maybe that's making the dart board smaller, and I know we're not as smart as we'd like to be, but, if we aim for a tighter target, our misses won't be so great.

tnord

07-30-2008, 04:44 PM

I understand what's going on, and what defined a "miss" in the past. i just don't want there to be expectation of extensive "adders" due to gear ratio, slope of power curve between specifc RPM ranges, # of piston caliper adders, CG, and so on and so forth.

the "adders" on the end of the formula are sufficient, if you want to refine them to a % weight break for things like FWD that's fine, but i think tacking on add'l factors to the end of the formula in the name of accuracy is a mistake.

seckerich

07-30-2008, 05:21 PM

The lack of building of very popular cars classed in ITR is directly due to the formula. As the power goes up the % off gets much greater. In ITR every HP you are off is 14 pounds. Doesn't take much of a goof to kill a car. In todays economy nobody is stupid enough to build a car and hope you will fix it in it's third year. Some of those cars need to be looked at again.

1 X 1.25 X 11.25 = 14.06

JoshS

07-30-2008, 05:28 PM

The lack of building of very popular cars classed in ITR is directly due to the formula.

In your opinion, other than the RX-8, what very popular car isn't getting built due to its spec weight?

jjjanos

07-30-2008, 05:40 PM

Heck, if THAT is a competition adjustment, then so is anything we do to set a classification weight.

Why yes, yes they are. If they weren't, a Renault Drapeau Blanc with a 1488CC engine would get the same weight as a Volkswagen KlasseüberHund with an entirely different 1488CC engine. The adjustment comes when we consider that the Renault produces 18HP and automatically pits when in the proximity of a German car and the VW will generate 92HP.

We've adjusted the weights for competition reasons. The difference between the IT and prod philosophy is that we do it a-priori and they do it ex-post ad infinitum. Another difference is that IT does it 3 Musketeer-style (all for one and one for all) and prod does it High Noon-style (one man, all alone).

And racing would suck, unless we got lucky with a few models.
The entire point of setting weights is to create competitive parity.

Yes and that's the point. For competition, we adjust the weights, in-advance, based on a subset of their characteristics. We then stick with those weights as if they came down from Mt Sinai, unless its a really good car that does more than what the process thought it would, and then we do it ex-post.

It works, for the most part, except for outliers and, usually, outliers aren't that numerous. The question is what to do about those outliers? Either the process needs to adjust for the factors that make them outliers with an across the board adjustment for those factors or we do nothing and we don't see those cars.

I think that's what people are suggesting... adding new parameters that would be applied to all cars in another realignment.

shwah

07-30-2008, 06:19 PM

I'm OK with, and understand the granularity inherent in the process. I just want it applied consistently. No more BGA and AGA classism! (thats Great Alignment - not teh Greg Amy)

GKR_17

07-30-2008, 07:26 PM

Here are a few numbers to show that transmission ratios are more important than torque, based on actual dyno plots.

An unrestricted E36 325i is 32 hp below max after shifting from 3rd to 4th. The same car is 22 hp below max after shifting from 4th to 5th.

The Rx-8 is 10 hp below max for both shifts 4th-5th, and 5th-6th.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want transmission ratios included in the formula, I just don't want the single torque value there either. Limited adders I can live with. The only way to accurately account for torque is with real dyno plots for each car, and that will never happen. I'll guarantee that very few of us are as altruistic as Jeff. I won't be providing any dyno plots unless it is absolutely necessary to support some critical argument. For that same reason, I don't fully trust any other dyno data supplied by others.

So since some car hasn't been built it must be an underdog? I might believe that in a decade. As far as I know, only about 1/3 of the cars that are ITR eligible have been on the track so far, and few of those were new builds.

seckerich

07-31-2008, 12:55 AM

In your opinion, other than the RX-8, what very popular car isn't getting built due to its spec weight?

300Z
Type R
S2000 (except 1)

Only cars I see in the class that are sweetheart weights are the E36 and Porsche. I am on the outside looking in now Josh because it is now very clear the majority of the ITAC will keep the status quo. Too many ITR BMW guys on the ITAC to be objective. You can tilt the smoke and mirrors all you want but it is spec BMW for years to come if it lives at all. Kirk will go down with his "process" and that is fine. At least he is consistent to a fault. Others will block any and all attempts to get it right because they like it how it is.

Prove me wrong and I will be the first to say "I was wrong" but not holding my breath. Grafton will continue his same BS he did when he tried to convince us all the E36 was classed properly and we see how that ended up. I guess I am just jaded after the goat screwing you guys gave the RX8 because of BS numbers. You will continue to ignore the fact it can not make even the rear wheel power of the E36 and way less torque and you somehow think you got the weight right. All the gears in the world don't make that right. Try to carry equal momentum in corners with that weight difference. Same for the S2000. Your process is broken in ITR and you know it. Now lets see what you do about it. Not personal guys, just the way I see it unfolding until now.

Pissed off but still :D

JoshS

07-31-2008, 01:22 AM

300Z
Type R
S2000 (except 1)

Only cars I see in the class that are sweetheart weights are the E36 and Porsche. I am on the outside looking in now Josh because it is now very clear the majority of the ITAC will keep the status quo. Too many ITR BMW guys on the ITAC to be objective.

First, understand please that there were *zero* BMW drivers on the ITAC when the weights of all of the original ITR cars were assigned. None. I personally didn't even know about ITR until after it was practically a done deal. In fact, one of the reasons I was told I'd be a good fit for the committee was because it would be good to have some BMW representation and knowledge because the BMW drivers in IT, in general, felt persecuted. Now you are saying that the BMW drivers have all of the control of the ITAC. I think the rest of the ITAC would agree that we (all both of us) don't. And we don't outnumber the Mazda drivers, BTW. And I'm an ex-Mazda driver. Mazda was so good to me that I actually feel guilty not driving one, I almost feel like I'm playing for the other team. But none of that has anything to do with the way weights get assigned, there's no personal bias.

Second of all, I personally know of at least two built S2000s, one 300ZX, and one Type R. Compared to other cars listed in the class, that's AT LEAST average, if not more than average.

You can tilt the smoke and mirrors all you want but it is spec BMW for years to come if it lives at all.

You know as well as I do that the reason that there are so many more E36s running right now is because there were plenty of IT-legal cars already in the SCCA community at the launch of the class. That can't be said for any of the cars you listed. It's unrealistic to expect anything that wasn't already listed in IT to match that.

I guess I am just jaded after the goat screwing you guys gave the RX8 because of BS numbers. You will continue to ignore the fact it can not make even the rear wheel power of the E36 and way less torque and you somehow think you got the weight right.

I never said we got the weight right for ultimate competitiveness. All I said was that we got the weight right with respect to the process. I'm relatively new (newer than you) to this process business, and I personally think there's a lot of room for improvement. But unfortunately, it's not possible to change the process without doing another huge reassignment of all of the weights of everything listed ... everything ... and that's too disruptive to do at this point.

Just in case it's not clear, the reason I say that is that because if you change the process mid-stream, then cars that were classed pre-change will not look like cars that were classed post-change, and that sort of inconsistency is worse (yes, in my opinion) than getting some outliers wrong.

In the meantime, we simply have to stick with the process we have. If some cars don't fit the existing process very well, they will just have to wait until the process can be changed.

I personally think that we should change the process to account for torque better. It'll help low-torque high-revvers, and it'll make it easier for us to include low-revving high-torquers like the pony cars as well. But as I said, we can't just change the process mid-stream without another great realignment, and I don't think the community has the intestinal fortitude to put up with that right now, not when most people feel things are better than ever.

Pissed off but still :D

Good thing you said that, because the tone sure doesn't come off that way!

Knestis

07-31-2008, 01:43 AM

With respect, Steve - it just didn't go down the way you want to believe. The fact that it didn't turn out the way you want is not evidence of shenanigans.

And you and I agree completely on the process. The ONLY place where we differ is the factor applied to the RX8 engine (and/or the veracity of the stock power quoted by Mazda, which is really different routes to the same destination).

I've agreed that since this car is a "class of one," that it is necessary to use a different power multiplier. Most of us participated in lengthy conversations trying to discern what the most correct multiplier would be. Many of us were willing to accept "real world data" and work BACKWARD to define that multiplier. I was - and remain - very leery of using that kind of data in that way, particularly if it comes without attribution, not for dissemination, and not triangulated from multiple independent sources that say the same thing.

I'm on record as suggesting that if we can define some "standards of quality" for the "real-world data" submitted, we might well be able to use them to influence factors applied to physical attributes - not individual cars unless their attributes are unique. To this point however, there's only limited agreement on the ITAC that there's any need to shift off of current practice: About that much we absolutely DO agree.

K

Knestis

07-31-2008, 01:49 AM

Catch22

07-31-2008, 03:53 AM

I can easily see this discussion getting all crazy and headache causing, but to me Kirk has hit it on the head in the very first post.

If we don't have those things when cars are classed and weight speced, we might as well not even have a "process" at all.
In other words, if you use a process for some cars, but don't use it on others (because some *opinions* are that the process doesn't apply well to *that* car) you have exactly what we had before the ever was a "process" at all.
You have a group of people using politics and opinions to class and spec cars.

Not good. And not healthy for the class. Not at all.

Make a process, make it public, and do the best you can to fairly and openly apply it to ALL cars.
Anything else is just more "Secret Car Club" bullshit.

Scott, who says either you have a process or you don't. Having a process "sometimes" is just plain worthless and is the kind of thinking that got IT goobered up in the first place.

PS - Like Jeff noted on page 1, my biggest concern is members of the ITAC having an issue with this. Maybe I'm missing something, but thats pretty bothersome on the surface. And it explains why, as far as we've come in the past few years, on some cars the math just plain doesn't work. Seems like there are still some "politics as usual" at work. Not at all what I want to hear, and why I'm one of those folks currently not "bought in" to the process.

PS2 - Don't bitch on web boards. Make your feelings known to members of the ITAC and CRB either in writing (formally) or in person. Thats how this club works. Yeah, I've already done it.

tnord

07-31-2008, 09:10 AM

>> ...and you will get many more requests for this or that in order for them to be competitive.

I just don't know where you come up with this stuff sometimes, Travis. There's simply no provision in the category rules or practices to give anyone "this or that" to help them out. Yeah, people can ASK all they want but we'll continue to tell them "no" - no spec-line allowances, no creep, no additional allowances for modifications.

I appreciate your interest in keeping things simple but I don't think anyone here - least of all the ITAC members - are advocating for a regression analysis with dozens of factors.

K

are you going to be on the ITAC forever? Andy? Jake? didn't think so. how many times have we been over the sequence of events where if you allow something like bigger hubs from a civic on a CRX in the name of safety, that you will get washed down the hill with other similar requests in the name of "safety" which are really just thinly veiled requests at giving their car an advantage.

same thing if the process starts getting too granular. just watch people start asking for allowances to their car because of an upright windshield creating poor aero, or whatever else they can come up with.

and what was that you said earlier about volunteer organizations being poor at retaining knowledge? future ITAC boards won't necessarily have the same views as you guys. not to mention if/when it does go national, that just gives more tools for the CRB/BOD to screw with in the name of parity.

change the "adders" to a % rather than a set # and all is good in the hood.

lateapex911

07-31-2008, 09:17 AM

300Z
Type R
S2000 (except 1)

Only cars I see in the class that are sweetheart weights are the E36 and Porsche. I am on the outside looking in now Josh because it is now very clear the majority of the ITAC will keep the status quo. Too many ITR BMW guys on the ITAC to be objective. ............Others will block any and all attempts to get it right because they like it how it is.

Steve, you have had some solid and positive posts and comments in the past, but on this one, I have to throw a red flag. I'm pretty involved in the ITAC stuff. So much so that I even tried to hunt you down in Lime Rock, knowing full well you could give me an earful (or worse) on the RX-8 deal, to discuss it and ITAC stuff.And I have to tell you that when I read the above, I stopped, and thought, "How can ONE guy be a majority? And he's so quiet!". Well, turns out that I forgot Josh even drove a BMW for a second! THAT"s how often his car comes up. And Marshall? Marshall is one of the guys that does his job, yet isn't very noisy about it. As Josh pointed out, the work was done pre Josh involvement.

I too looked at the ITR list, and thought about which car was the one for me. I settled on the 944S2. Then I priced out the mods to the motor, and after a call to Milledge, decided it wasn't such a sweetheart deal afterall! To build a serious race car of any marque is $$$, but that 944 is $$$$$. THAT'S why the E36 is popular. Looks good on paper, and you can buy one built for pennies on the dollar. Duh, unless you're a newbie, you know thats the smart money way to go.

Same for the S2000. Your process is broken in ITR and you know it. Now lets see what you do about it. Not personal guys, just the way I see it unfolding until now.

Pissed off but still :D

The RX-8 has issues, absolutely. And I've gone on record both on the committee and here that the S2000 is too heavy. But, it got the lowest factor in IT when it was classed. And the RX-8? Well, to be fair, you HAVE to admit the car is the subject of a lot of industry controversy. Is it the ITACs fault the factory ratings are FUBAR? In the end those pro RX-8 and those con RX-8 are pissed, so at least we struck a balance. Trust me, I am a Mazda guy, I had the RX8 in my sights. But I see WHY it ended up the way it did.

Funny how just a year or two ago, there were cries of foul from the BMW guys swearing on bibles that Andy was the Dark Lord and Mazda was in our pockets. Now you say it's "nothing personal", but when my committee is being accused of being biased, and classing cars for personal gain, I have a hard time seeing that claim as being altruistic.

seckerich

07-31-2008, 09:31 AM

First, understand please that there were *zero* BMW drivers on the ITAC when the weights of all of the original ITR cars were assigned. None. I personally didn't even know about ITR until after it was practically a done deal. In fact, one of the reasons I was told I'd be a good fit for the committee was because it would be good to have some BMW representation and knowledge because the BMW drivers in IT, in general, felt persecuted. Now you are saying that the BMW drivers have all of the control of the ITAC. I think the rest of the ITAC would agree that we (all both of us) don't. And we don't outnumber the Mazda drivers, BTW. And I'm an ex-Mazda driver. Mazda was so good to me that I actually feel guilty not driving one, I almost feel like I'm playing for the other team. But none of that has anything to do with the way weights get assigned, there's no personal bias.

Second of all, I personally know of at least two built S2000s, one 300ZX, and one Type R. Compared to other cars listed in the class, that's AT LEAST average, if not more than average.

You know as well as I do that the reason that there are so many more E36s running right now is because there were plenty of IT-legal cars already in the SCCA community at the launch of the class. That can't be said for any of the cars you listed. It's unrealistic to expect anything that wasn't already listed in IT to match that.

I never said we got the weight right for ultimate competitiveness. All I said was that we got the weight right with respect to the process. I'm relatively new (newer than you) to this process business, and I personally think there's a lot of room for improvement. But unfortunately, it's not possible to change the process without doing another huge reassignment of all of the weights of everything listed ... everything ... and that's too disruptive to do at this point.

Just in case it's not clear, the reason I say that is that because if you change the process mid-stream, then cars that were classed pre-change will not look like cars that were classed post-change, and that sort of inconsistency is worse (yes, in my opinion) than getting some outliers wrong.

In the meantime, we simply have to stick with the process we have. If some cars don't fit the existing process very well, they will just have to wait until the process can be changed.

I personally think that we should change the process to account for torque better. It'll help low-torque high-revvers, and it'll make it easier for us to include low-revving high-torquers like the pony cars as well. But as I said, we can't just change the process mid-stream without another great realignment, and I don't think the community has the intestinal fortitude to put up with that right now, not when most people feel things are better than ever.

Good thing you said that, because the tone sure doesn't come off that way!

Fair enough Josh. and a well written response. I do not sit in on your meetings so have no real world knowledge of those discussions. It is however clear you guys "missed" on a few cars, and are aware it is because the process has some flaws. Many times I hear members state that Dyno numbers have too many variables to be used as evidence yet you take as sacred numbers you have proof are flawed. Numbers from one manufacturer to another are just as unreliable. I understand you have to start somewhere and do the best you can with the information provided. The ITAC has used known data (percent gain in IT trim" both high and low to fix outliers as you call them. The E36 is the poster child for that. It was the main reason the class got started and it does not use a 25% factor. The target for the class is an exception.

It comes down to knowing you have some problems and making a decision:

1. The cars that have "different" characteristics get left out.
2. You do your job and do what it takes to get close with defensible numbers.

You have the ability to use many data sources to get reasonable information on these outliers. You just have to be willing to do it. Comes with the ITAC hat.:happy204:

lateapex911

07-31-2008, 09:35 AM

You have the ability to use many data sources to get reasonable information on these outliers. You just have to be willing to do it. Comes with the ITAC hat.:happy204:

True enough....

BUT...those protocols need to be established for those numbers to be accepted, and I think you'll agree that any organization needs to be very wary of "proof" supplied by proponents of the action, even when the supplier is of known integrity.

Knestis

07-31-2008, 10:21 AM

... just watch people start asking for allowances to their car because of an upright windshield creating poor aero, or whatever else they can come up with. ...

Fair point. That's why it's important that the factors under consideration be clearly defined, documented, and made public. There's currently NO allowance in the process for "aero" but you're right that people - even ITAC members - get sucked into thinking about things like that. We can't afford to go there.

K

seckerich

07-31-2008, 10:22 AM

True enough....

BUT...those protocols need to be established for those numbers to be accepted, and I think you'll agree that any organization needs to be very wary of "proof" supplied by proponents of the action, even when the supplier is of known integrity.

Very true. It is available from numerous sources that have more to gain from inflated numbers. I would be happy if you even used those for a reality check.:D

tnord

07-31-2008, 10:40 AM

Fair point. That's why it's important that the factors under consideration be clearly defined, documented, and made public. There's currently NO allowance in the process for "aero" but you're right that people - even ITAC members - get sucked into thinking about things like that. We can't afford to go there.

K

which is why i think that we might be getting to specific/granular/elaborate with the model......IF the requests made here were applied.

so now do you understand "where i come up with this stuff?"

gran racing

07-31-2008, 10:58 AM

And I've gone on record both on the committee and here that the S2000 is too heavy. But, it got the lowest factor in IT when it was classed.

Just because it got the lowest factor doesn't mean it was classed properly even within the process. I guess I just don't understand this one.

For the RX8, and this is probably a dumb idea, could one or two ITAC members put a stock RX8 on a dyno to get a better comfort level with the power numbers (any related costs to do this put aside)?

lateapex911

07-31-2008, 11:29 AM

Well, Dave, it's been done, just not with the RX-8. It was unprecedented, and it cost me personally hundreds in lost revenue and I got lots of heat from a client, and I put cash out for it too,.....and..

....and the guys getting the model dyno-ed STILL said i was getting Mazda money, and felt I was biased, and bla bla bla...

The issues that arise from that are numerous and onerous.

To name but a few: Who's dyno? Which kind? How do we KNOW the drive train isn't a contributing factor? (If we use a chassis dyno) And if it is, do we care? or not? How do we know the stock examples are truly representative? Untampered with? Who pays? Who does it?

See, these are issues that would need to be resolved, and protocols created that would be generic in nature, and followed in every case that came up..

Then, how do we decide to test a car? What triggers such a test? Who decides? (You can hear member requests coming in now)

At this point, the governments require manufacturers to test their cars under strict guidelines. Those numbers are pretty well scrutinized by lots of organizations far more powerful than us. Just because we "suspect" something is amiss, we can't be too quick to react. There needs to be a preponderance of evidence to back up any suspicion.

Now, I do think it's possible, and trust me, i would LOVE to have solid numbers that confirmed stock hp, but, I also see the need to have strict guidelines and procedures to attain those numbers.

And thats where I think it gets cumbersome. If we could have a tech dept in Topeka that could obtain unmolested stock versions and dyno them, I'd be all for it. Ideally, the dyno test would be out of car, and done to SAE standards. Otherwise, we get into debates on the math, and so on.

Let's say you have a car you spent 50 grand building and racing. What sort of evidence would YOU want to see us use to class a car that you'll run against? (That's you know will be built to the nines by one of the best shops in the business, and campaigned by pro level drivers)

chuck baader

07-31-2008, 12:03 PM

Jake, your assessment about dyno testing is correct. However, I feel that a chassis dynos will take care of the problem. If national could use ONE chassis dyno to test cars (perhaps to SAE type rules) I think we could get a good handle on potential. After all, we are not racing dynos....we are racing on track.

To address "what truly matters", for me, is to feel with reasonable certainly that I have chosen a car that can be competitive in class. With the changes in classification/weight in the last years, I feel a much better sense of parity within the IT classes. Chuck

GKR_17

07-31-2008, 02:12 PM

I think the best thing the ITAC can do is keep the status quo. Stability is a good thing. Monkeying with the process now will just hurt that. Is it clear that to account for torque you really need the full power curve and factor in gearing? We can't even get agreement on a single power number for the Rx-8, imagine the controversy on full dyno data (not that they're obtainable anyway). The process works, leave it alone! Sure, not every car will be competitive, but everyone has an equal shot at picking a good one today. If the process is stable, then that car shouldn't suddenly be far outclassed by some new car later on.

As for the E36 in ITS, I never said it met the process. We picked that car ten years ago because we thought it was the best one we could build for the class, and ran it for several years without significant harassment. My argument was that the comp adjustments and the "great realignment" weren't allowed by the rules. I was fighting for stability then just as I am now. One of my major complaints was against all the whiners who said the car was too fast. The vast majority of those folks either joined IT or built new cars long after the E36 was eligible. If they thought it was so fast why didn't they build one? You better believe I'll fight hard to avoid this whole situation all over again in ITR.

Was the great realignment a good thing? Probably so, but now that we have the process we need to leave it alone. Otherwise there's no hope for stability.

Nothing personal Steve :rolleyes:, but if you want to complain about the numbers you need to talk to Mazda.

seckerich

07-31-2008, 03:24 PM

DavidM

07-31-2008, 05:52 PM

I get busy at work and go away for a couple days and there's 3 pages of discussion to sift though...

Not to go too far off topic, but whether you call it an adder, a PCA, a competition adjustment, or a thing-a-ma-jig, it's a weight adjustment. Calling it something different if it's done when the car is classed vs after the car is classed is a matter of semantics. If a car is classed using the 25% power increase and then later it's determined that the car can actually get 30% and the car is re-run through the process using 30%. Is that a PCA or an adder? Doesn't make a difference what you call it, it's a weight adjustment.

Use the minimum amount of "subjectivity" needed to initially weight the car at what is thought to be a competitive weight and document everything. Adjust the weight in the future if it appears it was missed by a lot. I think this is where the ITAC is headed. I would also add that there should be no "special circumstances". I.e. the SM crossover cage issue.

The really fun part is how and when do you determine if the car's weight should be adjusted. But we already have another thread for that discussion.

David

Knestis

07-31-2008, 11:42 PM

Since some posters seem to be telling me what my position is, even after I tried very hard to not have one here...

I'm frustrated by the strategies being applied to argue what I think is a completely reasonable solution to our "process problem," by invoking counters to positions that I am NOT proposing (e.g., blind adherence to one simplistic formula for all cars, the addition of an endless list of factors to a psycho-complex process, or entertaining repeated requests for minute changes to specification weights).

So here - as simply as my addled mind can manage - is what I'm arguing for:

** Start with the current process, exactly as the ITAC currently applies it (we have written but not completely fleshed out guidelines).

** Document any and all power multipliers that are in play, by describing what physical attributes warrant them (e.g., '70's era cars with smog pumps and carbs get 1.xx; OBDI/OBDII FI 8 valve cars get 1.xx, etc.) If the ITAC thinks more are necessary, add them. This list would likely be 1.25 unless (whatever)...

** Document guidelines for any and all adders that are in play, also by the physical attributes that trigger their application. FWD is binary, others will be harder. If gearboxes are on the table, provide example ratios of what makes a 'box "good." How big are brakes that deserve an adder? Document it. NOTE here that I am NOT advocating or the inclusion of any more factors.

** If it ain't in on the lists above, it doesn't get included in the figuring. If we discover some new thing (hey, how about ABS?) then adders/subtractors or new multipliers (the Prius, you know) get listed and used. There's no ad hoc addition of fudge factors or new variables, tied to individual make/model examples.

** When a new car comes into the system, its pertinent attributes are documented (there's talk of creating a new IT-specific VTS) and the math is completed. STOP. Do not second guess, do not re-run the math with different factors to see if a more comfortable/palatable solution pops out. Do not buy what individuals with vested interests are selling as "real world data" on individual cases.

** Document the assumptions and math for posterity (including the date), publish the math, go racing. The documented examples will help inform the standards used to apply tougher adders, since we'll have something to compare to.

** When a request to re-examine an existing car comes in, run exactly the same process. The only difference is that it MIGHT be reasonable to have a tolerance, within which existing weights are left alone if they are "close enough," because there are costs ($$ and otherwise) associated with any change. This (of course) has to be recorded so it gets used consistently.

** THe ITAC might trigger the process ourselves, if we identify an anomalous listing. I don't believe at this point that it's truly necessary to do a Second Great Realignment. Arguments that it's "all or nothing" honestly strike me as somewhat hyperbolic.

That's it. Done.

** We won't have an ongoing flood of requests to fix cars that have been through the process, because as soon as members understand that we've documented the process and outcomes so they get the same answer over and over, they'll give up right quick.

** We aren't trying to be "too smart." In fact this system's got a lot less hubris built into it than does the most subjective applications of the process that have happened over the years. I don't believe we can subjectively get closer to "right" than this process will achieve because "what we know" is too suspect.

** We can - without concern - publish this process to the membership. Since we aren't making anything up as we go, we have repeatable. Since weights get assigned to attributes rather than cars, we have defensible. Since we can communicate processes to the membership, we have transparent.

** The ITAC would lose some degree of control to apply their judgment. I don't care. The value added in terms of trust and reduced conflict is worth it.

** Yes - we are still going to have some people say, "Smogged up POS Pintos, Vegas, and their ilk should be at 1.xx +.10. "Thank you for your input." Yes - we will still have some issues where categories include ONE car (see also, "Rotaries"). The ITAC will just have to explain - a few times, perhaps - that it's gotten as close as it believes reasonable. If TRULY compelling evidence becomes available, the ITAC has the power to change a factor but we'd be well advised to have some standards for evidential quality for that step. We also better be DAMNED sure about the change because it will throw past classifications into inconsistencies with those done post-change. This kind of thing should be VERY rare. If they ever happen, they should be documented as changes and dated.

We members of the ITAC would have to hang onto the conviction that we're doing the right thing and have the stones to explain it and stand by it publicly.

Argue what I've proposed but please stop telling me that it's stupid to do something that I've never suggested.

K

JeffYoung

07-31-2008, 11:57 PM

Kirk, this is PERFECT. Write this up, or having someone write it up (I will take a stab if you want) and have the ITAC "adopt it" as the official PROCESS for going forward. Official as in written down, on paper, documented and accessible to all membership. The rules of car classification.

I'm serious. And if you guys want me to take a stab at writing up a first draft, I will.

Lot of thought went into that (Kirk's post). Much appreciated.

Since some posters seem to be telling me what my position is, even after I tried very hard to not have one here...

I'm frustrated by the strategies being applied to argue what I think is a completely reasonable solution to our "process problem," by invoking counters to positions that I am NOT proposing (e.g., blind adherence to one simplistic formula for all cars, the addition of an endless list of factors to a psycho-complex process, or entertaining repeated requests for minute changes to specification weights).

So here - as simply as my addled mind can manage - is what I'm arguing for:

** Start with the current process, exactly as the ITAC currently applies it (we have written but not completely fleshed out guidelines).

** Document any and all power multipliers that are in play, by describing what physical attributes warrant them (e.g., '70's era cars with smog pumps and carbs get 1.xx; OBDI/OBDII FI 8 valve cars get 1.xx, etc.) If the ITAC thinks more are necessary, add them. This list would likely be 1.25 unless (whatever)...

** Document guidelines for any and all adders that are in play, also by the physical attributes that trigger their application. FWD is binary, others will be harder. If gearboxes are on the table, provide example ratios of what makes a 'box "good." How big are brakes that deserve an adder? Document it. NOTE here that I am NOT advocating or the inclusion of any more factors.

** If it ain't in on the lists above, it doesn't get included in the figuring. If we discover some new thing (hey, how about ABS?) then adders/subtractors or new multipliers (the Prius, you know) get listed and used. There's no ad hoc addition of fudge factors or new variables, tied to individual make/model examples.

** When a new car comes into the system, its pertinent attributes are documented (there's talk of creating a new IT-specific VTS) and the math is completed. STOP. Do not second guess, do not re-run the math with different factors to see if a more comfortable/palatable solution pops out. Do not buy what individuals with vested interests are selling as "real world data" on individual cases.

** Document the assumptions and math for posterity (including the date), publish the math, go racing. The documented examples will help inform the standards used to apply tougher adders, since we'll have something to compare to.

** When a request to re-examine an existing car comes in, run exactly the same process. The only difference is that it MIGHT be reasonable to have a tolerance, within which existing weights are left alone if they are "close enough," because there are costs ($$ and otherwise) associated with any change. This (of course) has to be recorded so it gets used consistently.

** THe ITAC might trigger the process ourselves, if we identify an anomalous listing. I don't believe at this point that it's truly necessary to do a Second Great Realignment. Arguments that it's "all or nothing" honestly strike me as somewhat hyperbolic.

That's it. Done.

** We won't have an ongoing flood of requests to fix cars that have been through the process, because as soon as members understand that we've documented the process and outcomes so they get the same answer over and over, they'll give up right quick.

** We aren't trying to be "too smart." In fact this system's got a lot less hubris built into it than does the most subjective applications of the process that have happened over the years. I don't believe we can subjectively get closer to "right" than this process will achieve because "what we know" is too suspect.

** We can - without concern - publish this process to the membership. Since we aren't making anything up as we go, we have repeatable. Since weights get assigned to attributes rather than cars, we have defensible. Since we can communicate processes to the membership, we have transparent.

** The ITAC would lose some degree of control to apply their judgment. I don't care. The value added in terms of trust and reduced conflict is worth it.

** Yes - we are still going to have some people say, "Smogged up POS Pintos, Vegas, and their ilk should be at 1.xx +.10. "Thank you for your input." Yes - we will still have some issues where categories include ONE car (see also, "Rotaries"). The ITAC will just have to explain - a few times, perhaps - that it's gotten as close as it believes reasonable. If TRULY compelling evidence becomes available, the ITAC has the power to change a factor but we'd be well advised to have some standards for evidential quality for that step. We also better be DAMNED sure about the change because it will throw past classifications into inconsistencies with those done post-change. This kind of thing should be VERY rare. If they ever happen, they should be documented as changes and dated.

We members of the ITAC would have to hang onto the conviction that we're doing the right thing and have the stones to explain it and stand by it publicly.

Argue what I've proposed but please stop telling me that it's stupid to do something that I've never suggested.

K

ekim952522000

08-01-2008, 12:42 AM

That is simply the best thing I have ever heard as far as rules for club racing go.

I don't know what more people could ask for.

Since some posters seem to be telling me what my position is, even after I tried very hard to not have one here...

I'm frustrated by the strategies being applied to argue what I think is a completely reasonable solution to our "process problem," by invoking counters to positions that I am NOT proposing (e.g., blind adherence to one simplistic formula for all cars, the addition of an endless list of factors to a psycho-complex process, or entertaining repeated requests for minute changes to specification weights).

So here - as simply as my addled mind can manage - is what I'm arguing for:

** Start with the current process, exactly as the ITAC currently applies it (we have written but not completely fleshed out guidelines).

** Document any and all power multipliers that are in play, by describing what physical attributes warrant them (e.g., '70's era cars with smog pumps and carbs get 1.xx; OBDI/OBDII FI 8 valve cars get 1.xx, etc.) If the ITAC thinks more are necessary, add them. This list would likely be 1.25 unless (whatever)...

** Document guidelines for any and all adders that are in play, also by the physical attributes that trigger their application. FWD is binary, others will be harder. If gearboxes are on the table, provide example ratios of what makes a 'box "good." How big are brakes that deserve an adder? Document it. NOTE here that I am NOT advocating or the inclusion of any more factors.

** If it ain't in on the lists above, it doesn't get included in the figuring. If we discover some new thing (hey, how about ABS?) then adders/subtractors or new multipliers (the Prius, you know) get listed and used. There's no ad hoc addition of fudge factors or new variables, tied to individual make/model examples.

** When a new car comes into the system, its pertinent attributes are documented (there's talk of creating a new IT-specific VTS) and the math is completed. STOP. Do not second guess, do not re-run the math with different factors to see if a more comfortable/palatable solution pops out. Do not buy what individuals with vested interests are selling as "real world data" on individual cases.

** Document the assumptions and math for posterity (including the date), publish the math, go racing. The documented examples will help inform the standards used to apply tougher adders, since we'll have something to compare to.

** When a request to re-examine an existing car comes in, run exactly the same process. The only difference is that it MIGHT be reasonable to have a tolerance, within which existing weights are left alone if they are "close enough," because there are costs ($$ and otherwise) associated with any change. This (of course) has to be recorded so it gets used consistently.

** THe ITAC might trigger the process ourselves, if we identify an anomalous listing. I don't believe at this point that it's truly necessary to do a Second Great Realignment. Arguments that it's "all or nothing" honestly strike me as somewhat hyperbolic.

That's it. Done.

** We won't have an ongoing flood of requests to fix cars that have been through the process, because as soon as members understand that we've documented the process and outcomes so they get the same answer over and over, they'll give up right quick.

** We aren't trying to be "too smart." In fact this system's got a lot less hubris built into it than does the most subjective applications of the process that have happened over the years. I don't believe we can subjectively get closer to "right" than this process will achieve because "what we know" is too suspect.

** We can - without concern - publish this process to the membership. Since we aren't making anything up as we go, we have repeatable. Since weights get assigned to attributes rather than cars, we have defensible. Since we can communicate processes to the membership, we have transparent.

** The ITAC would lose some degree of control to apply their judgment. I don't care. The value added in terms of trust and reduced conflict is worth it.

** Yes - we are still going to have some people say, "Smogged up POS Pintos, Vegas, and their ilk should be at 1.xx +.10. "Thank you for your input." Yes - we will still have some issues where categories include ONE car (see also, "Rotaries"). The ITAC will just have to explain - a few times, perhaps - that it's gotten as close as it believes reasonable. If TRULY compelling evidence becomes available, the ITAC has the power to change a factor but we'd be well advised to have some standards for evidential quality for that step. We also better be DAMNED sure about the change because it will throw past classifications into inconsistencies with those done post-change. This kind of thing should be VERY rare. If they ever happen, they should be documented as changes and dated.

We members of the ITAC would have to hang onto the conviction that we're doing the right thing and have the stones to explain it and stand by it publicly.

Argue what I've proposed but please stop telling me that it's stupid to do something that I've never suggested.

K

ekim952522000

08-01-2008, 01:20 AM

The reason I am excited about what you are saying Kirk is some of the things in ITR do not make sense to me if I could see the math and what you guys thought maybe it would.

Example:
Integra Type R --------- 195HP - 130TQ - 1.8L 2535lbs
Acura RSX Type S ------- 200HP - 142TQ - 2.0L 2665lbs
Honda Prelude (non SH) - 200HP - 156TQ - 2.2L 2640lbs

I actually think all these weights seem very balanced for the cars but would be very curious to see the math on how each cars weight was determined.

dickita15

08-01-2008, 05:51 AM

Great post Kirk. Much concern voiced is for the future when there will have been turnover in the ITAC. There is a fair amount of trust in the current group. It would be great if the current ITAC could formalize, document and publish the process before this inevitable change in the makeup of the group changes.

Ed Funk

08-01-2008, 06:46 AM

Dave Zaslow

08-01-2008, 06:59 AM

Kirk,

Exactly and absolutely correct.

I'll also volunteer to parse any language to make sure that these unmechanical eyes read the same phrases and numbers that lock us all into a predictable and repeatable future.

Looking forward to a published process,

DZ

** Start with the current process, exactly as the ITAC currently applies it

** Document any and all power multipliers that are in play, by describing what physical attributes warrant them

** Document guidelines

** If it ain't in on the lists above, it doesn't get included in the figuring.

** When a new car comes into the system, its pertinent attributes are documented (there's talk of creating a new IT-specific VTS)

** Document the assumptions and math for posterity

** When a request to re-examine an existing car comes in, run exactly the same process.

** THe ITAC might trigger the process ourselves, if we identify an anomalous listing.

That's it. Done.

K

Ron Earp

08-01-2008, 07:24 AM

Kirk,

Exactly and absolutely correct.

Second that.

This thread has had more than a few plot twists and I didn't expect that to come out of it. Nice work Kirk.

Ron

Xian

08-01-2008, 10:08 AM

Great post Kirk! Sounds like a spot-on way to insure the same classification/weights now and in the future.

Christian

jjjanos

08-01-2008, 11:22 AM

Since some posters seem to be telling me what my position is, even after I tried very hard to not have one here...

Assume the position.... ;)

** When a request to re-examine an existing car comes in, run exactly the same process. The only difference is that it MIGHT be reasonable to have a tolerance, within which existing weights are left alone if they are "close enough," because there are costs ($$ and otherwise) associated with any change. This (of course) has to be recorded so it gets used consistently.

** THe ITAC might trigger the process ourselves, if we identify an anomalous listing. I don't believe at this point that it's truly necessary to do a Second Great Realignment. Arguments that it's "all or nothing" honestly strike me as somewhat hyperbolic.

I fail to see how applying a uniform standard to the classification of vehicles would be considered unreasonable. Reexamining a vehicle shouldn't result in a new weight as ALL relevant characteristics and the current process should have been used in setting the weight.

Why should the minimum weight of a vehicle depend on when it was classified? That's what you seem to be suggesting since you are implying that only new cars would be run through the revised process.

Weight of car under ITProcess V101 = 2000
Weight of car under ITProcess V102 = 1951, except you've already been classified and you need to carry an extra 49 pounds.

Same goes for establishing tolerances for adjusted errors in the weight. You're setting up cases where two cars processed at 2000 could end up at 2000 and 1950 because the first car was only 49 pounds off. That's not rules stability... that's intransigency clothed in the guise of rules stability. Adopting a new process is the change in the rules, not the movement in car weights.

Since +/- 25, 50,75,100 pounds is good-enough for establishing the weight, then I should have the same tolerance when weighed post-race. If 75lbs do not matter for classification purposes, then it shouldn't matter in the tech shed either.

** We won't have an ongoing flood of requests to fix cars that have been through the process, because as soon as members understand that we've documented the process and outcomes so they get the same answer over and over, they'll give up right quick.

Perhaps I am missing something. When IT Process V300 is implemented, would
1. all cars be re-processed or
2. is the new process applicable to unclassifed cars only or
3. is it applicable to unclassified cars and those cars that have been submitted for review under the new process?

Seems to me that you were suggesting option #2 and that's where an arbitrary and impartial classification process becomes capricious.

ekim952522000

08-01-2008, 11:38 AM

I agree this part is of a little concern. But Kirk did say "MIGHT be reasonable to have a tolerance" which to me says it is still open for discussion. My 2 cents on it is every car needs to be redone if the process is changed and if a car comes out 5lbs different than that should be the weight. I do feel like this is kind of a "all or nothing" thing Kirk since if car A was classed with the new process and car B was placed at whatever weight "seemed right" I don't find that very Consistent (which is one of the goals we are going for).

** When a request to re-examine an existing car comes in, run exactly the same process. The only difference is that it MIGHT be reasonable to have a tolerance, within which existing weights are left alone if they are "close enough," because there are costs ($$ and otherwise) associated with any change. This (of course) has to be recorded so it gets used consistently. Would this be based of lbs or percents? A combination of both?

** The ITAC might trigger the process ourselves, if we identify an anomalous listing. I don't believe at this point that it's truly necessary to do a Second Great Realignment. Arguments that it's "all or nothing" honestly strike me as somewhat hyperbolic.Kirk what factors do you think the ITAC would have control over in the system? obviously the amount of power gain in IT trim up 25% and then I am assuming there would be a consistent reduction and adder for everything else like, bad gear ratios, no torque, struts, double wishbones, etc... How many factors do you plan on including? would this be a LBS based system or a percent based system? A combination of both?

EDIT: grammer

gran racing

08-01-2008, 12:56 PM

My 2 cents on it is every car needs to be redone if the process is changed and if a car comes out 5lbs different than that should be the weight.

Now that the ITAC has hit the vehicles that were off the process the greatest, it would be nice if it were carried out to the other cars as well.

seckerich

08-01-2008, 01:00 PM

Steve, you have had some solid and positive posts and comments in the past, but on this one, I have to throw a red flag. I'm pretty involved in the ITAC stuff. So much so that I even tried to hunt you down in Lime Rock, knowing full well you could give me an earful (or worse) on the RX-8 deal, to discuss it and ITAC stuff.And I have to tell you that when I read the above, I stopped, and thought, "How can ONE guy be a majority? And he's so quiet!". Well, turns out that I forgot Josh even drove a BMW for a second! THAT"s how often his car comes up. And Marshall? Marshall is one of the guys that does his job, yet isn't very noisy about it. As Josh pointed out, the work was done pre Josh involvement.

I too looked at the ITR list, and thought about which car was the one for me. I settled on the 944S2. Then I priced out the mods to the motor, and after a call to Milledge, decided it wasn't such a sweetheart deal afterall! To build a serious race car of any marque is $$$, but that 944 is $$$$$. THAT'S why the E36 is popular. Looks good on paper, and you can buy one built for pennies on the dollar. Duh, unless you're a newbie, you know thats the smart money way to go.

The RX-8 has issues, absolutely. And I've gone on record both on the committee and here that the S2000 is too heavy. But, it got the lowest factor in IT when it was classed. And the RX-8? Well, to be fair, you HAVE to admit the car is the subject of a lot of industry controversy. Is it the ITACs fault the factory ratings are FUBAR? In the end those pro RX-8 and those con RX-8 are pissed, so at least we struck a balance. Trust me, I am a Mazda guy, I had the RX8 in my sights. But I see WHY it ended up the way it did.

Funny how just a year or two ago, there were cries of foul from the BMW guys swearing on bibles that Andy was the Dark Lord and Mazda was in our pockets. Now you say it's "nothing personal", but when my committee is being accused of being biased, and classing cars for personal gain, I have a hard time seeing that claim as being altruistic.

Sorry Jake, I missed your response until I was scroling back through today. If I was wrong about the influence on the ITAC of the BMW guys I apologise. I know Marshall and have raced with him and he is a stand up guy. Personal experience and a vested interest does sway us to some extent. I am way biased toward the Mazda. You are aware how deeply I am vested in racing them. I have 12-15 of them at any one time. Now there is a sickness!! I personally feel that there was too much politics involved in the decision. Most did not want to class the car at all, and others want it so heavy it can not cause problems. I understand the problems with factory numbers--I get it. In the bigger picture you saved ITR for all humanity. From my perspective you guys killed a car that could be raced fairly and help build the class. Yes I am pissed that it is now a dead issue for my next car as well.

I think a lot of Kirks post has some great merit. How you plan to deal with the "special cases" AKA Rotary and low torque maxed motors is unclear. As I read it they just go through the process like everything else. Sounds great because now I can go back to ITS and have a class killer. Or will I have to keep my old "special" weight? With all due respect you can't have it both ways. The rotary drivers have been a big part of the IT classes since the beginning and deserve better than that. I support an open, and fair way to deal with them if it is transparent. You have 3 motors to deal with and all have extensive history to go from. You seem to have no problem with the 12A and the second gen 13B. Both have been classed with proper percent gain in IT trim and race without being overdogs. How is it so friggin hard to just do the same thing with an RX8 or S2000 or the next factory maxed car you class? I do not see that as special treatment in any way. Set the number and publish it. If someone can prove it wrong then correct the error and move on.

This is not just me on the RX8 as you stated earlier Jake. Many others are just not as vocal as I. Either way beer is on me at the ARRC. I might finally get to meet some more of you and I won't mention a word about the RX8.:rolleyes:

Bill Miller

08-01-2008, 06:17 PM

Kirk,

I'll echo what others have said, nice job! I think you've pretty much hit it. I do have to disagree w.r.t. not needing another alignment (maybe not to the same level as TGA, which is not to be confused w/ tGA). You need to get rid of the "if it's w/in 100# it's close enough). Figure out what that new window is, and adjust any car that is outside it.

Other than that, I don't think you can ask for me. That's pretty much what I was advocating for oh so many years ago!

Well done sir!

shwah

08-01-2008, 07:56 PM

Another kudos - except I still think if the weight the process gives is good enough for a newly classed car, it is good enough for a currently classed car. Put all the cars at the weight the process tells you. If you don't trust the process, work on it until you do.

Knestis

08-01-2008, 09:50 PM

Interesting how, when I say "Start with the current process, exactly as the ITAC currently applies it," questions inject stuff I never said. Again. I know how politicians might feel.

>> How many factors do you plan on including?

As I said, "NOTE here that I am NOT advocating or the inclusion of any more factors."

>> Why should the minimum weight of a vehicle depend on when it was classified? That's what you seem to be suggesting since you are implying that only new cars would be run through the revised process.

From that post: "When a request to re-examine an existing car comes in, run exactly the same process. ..."

>> As I read it they just go through the process like everything else. Sounds great because now I can go back to ITS and have a class killer. ...

I really like and respect you Steve but I feel like sometimes you don't listen. What I propose - THE CURRENT SYSTEM, for the most part - would likely not change the current RX7 ITS specification at all. It would continue to have a power multiplier based on the best information we have, which at this point seems to be pretty much in the ball park. To be clear...

I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE ROTARIES' POWER QUESTION DIFFERENTLY THAN THE PISTON ENGINES. I said that too.

And when you say, "I personally feel that there was too much politics involved in the decision. Most did not want to class the car at all, and others want it so heavy it can not cause problems," I'm curious precisely who you think you're talking about. NOT the ITAC members who all agreed that this car is a very important addition to ITR, and most of whom I personally heard talk about how much they want to see it out there. Because we knew the pressure would be on from both camps - pro and con - we quite literally agonized over how to most fairly determine the IT-spec power number.

PLEASE see if you can't find a way to set free what you "know," and try to put yourself in our shoes for a minute. We do NOT know what you know, and we can't simply accept what you know under the circumstances. That doesn't mean you are wrong, that you don't know, or that you aren't trustworthy. It's only a reflection of the fact that we have to work very hard to determine and document that decision, because we are absolutely sure that we can't simply do what we do on a bunch of other cars. With the initial classing, we (well, "I" anyway) made the decision that we honestly believed got the power closest to "right," based on the guidelines we use to implement the process and OUR best understanding of the situation. That we don't agree with you is not proof of shenanigans and it's not fair to say that. If you have EVIDENCE that something funky went on - that we were all brainwashed by one ITAC member or something - spit it out. Or (with all due respect) stop spreading inflammatory stuff. It's not helpful.

But thank you for agreeing that the the 12A and 13B are "right." There's a very large body of understanding built up around those cars, and quite simply it's so "friggin' hard" to do that with the '8 because it's not yet to that point. YOU might know what it will do in IT trim, but we can't just let you tell us and be done. It's simply not going to fly without defining proactively what the expectation of quality for evidence is - particularly on a high profile listing. (EDIT - Or we can wait for 20 years of experience with the car to accumulate...?)

Ultimately, where the Renesis is concerned, the answer is between your comment of "If someone can prove it wrong then correct the error and move on," and Kirk's personal policy answer:

"If TRULY compelling evidence becomes available, the ITAC has the power to change a factor but we'd be well advised to have some standards for evidential quality for that step."

Help us develop those "evidential standards" but answering this question: Under what conditions would you place trust in ITR BMW Z4 engine power data, used to specify a power multiplier for ITR classification? NOT "by what standard does Steve assess the validity of Steve's data", but "by what standard does he assess the other guy's?"

Tell us what you'd demand from him and we'll be a step closer to defining what the system should demand of you, as we look for "compelling evidence" that the current RX8 spec is a miss. I'd ask other ITR guys/gals what they think the standard should be for their competitors, too. If they can only tell me that their figure is right and the others are wrong, we go nowhere.

And the standard of evidence can NOT be determined by whether or not you agree with the numbers they support. Tell us what evidential process you accept, then accept the evidence that comes out of it.

But I ain't the king. Ultimately, I believe that we collectively get the category we deserve and you're all participants in making that happen, whether you participate or not.

K

Catch22

08-02-2008, 02:51 AM

I like what Kirk has going on here. Alot.

But I know enough to be jaded at this point, and have reached that "I'll believe it when I see it" point.

Hopefully I'll see it. And since "transparency" is something being suggested/advocated, we should all know what we're seeing and when we'll see it.
But...
Yeah.

Scott, who has come to believe the category has so far only gotten one foot out of the mud, and while that is progress, if one foot is still in there, you are still stuck.

nsuracer

08-02-2008, 02:40 PM

Here is an idea. Abolish the ITAC, publish the formula for car classification, then let the membership run their car thru the matrix, go out and paste the appropriate class on their car and go to the track.

Probably won't get much support for that one will I? The point that I am trying to make is that there must be a certain amount of subjectivity to the classification process. Otherwise why go to the trouble of having supposedly knowlegeable guys on the ITAC trying to figure this out.

Anybody that has been at this game for 20 or 30 years has an institutional memory that they are probably not even aware of. (You know, like the time the Cyclops GT pulled you down the straight and you know that wasn't right because you had a cheater motor and you were lapping everybody else)http://72.167.111.130/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif Extreme example, but the point is subjectivety is more than just race results but all the little nuances of experience that these guys have gained over the years. After all this is what we pay them the big bucks for.

Knestis

08-02-2008, 06:59 PM

>> ...there must be a certain amount of subjectivity to the classification process.

In what I describe,that kind of experienced judgment would be applied as the multipliers and adders/subtractors are clarified - rather than in each instance of classification/specification.

However, it would help the conversation if you were explicit about what you mean by "subjectivity." You mean we could pick weights based on our collective experience with the category and cars?

K

Catch22

08-02-2008, 11:10 PM

>> You mean we could pick weights based on our collective experience with the category and cars?

K

Yeah. Welcome to 10 years ago.

Where that "subjectivity" comes in is the collective's decision on how to apply the established adders.
In other words, does car xxx get 25% or 30%.

But with that needs to be established and published guidelines.
Why? Because without it you get bias. And with bias you get Neons and Civics in ITS.

What is the p/w ratio target for each class?

What were the numbers used to determine the weight of x car in x class?

Does everything add up?

If it doesn't, I can see it, and write my letter.

And... If I take Kirk's place on the ITAC in 5 years, I can keep consistently doing the same thing he's been doing.

Duh.
It really is that easy.

I'd be much more comfortable with arguments about whether a 25% or 30% adder should be applied than arguments about cars that appear to be 100lbs heavy (or light) with no real indication of "why?"

Knestis

08-03-2008, 01:34 AM

On further reflection (and virtual conversations with a couple of you), it's increasingly clear that to my mind the issue is NOT about subjectivity. That's necessary, making a human factor (the ITAC in this instance) necessary as well.

What REALLY matters is WHEN we apply that subjectivity:

1. After classification - "Oh, crap. The Renault LeCar is too fast in GT5, as evidenced by the fact that Peterson cleaned house at the RunOffs. Give it 200 pounds." This is old-school competition adjustment of the worst kind.

2. During the specification math process - "We ran the numbers using the standard multiplier and obvious adders/subtractors, but the resulting weight just seems too low. Let's look at it again because we sure don't want it to be an overdog." There are some subtle variations of this kind of thinking but it seems pretty common (includes using "real world data" when making individual make/model decisions, in anticipation that the regular math will "get it wrong.")

3. As part of the bigger Process but BEFORE the specification math gets done - "We looked at all of the information we could compile about how OBDII 16v 4-cylinder engines seem to respond to IT tuning, and have established a power multiplier of 1.2 for that 'family' of powerplants. We'll apply this to every new classification or requested re-examination of cars with that type of engine." This is the core of what I'd propose we discuss and consider adopting.

I'm pretty confident that each approach influences (or would influence) what we do in very different ways; and effect repeatability/consistency and transparency differently as well.

K

JeffYoung

08-03-2008, 07:39 AM

More clear thinking, thanks Kirk.

I would suggest that the differences between 2 and 3 are slight though.

For example, I don't see much difference between using real world data to come up with the 1.2 multiplier for the OBD II 16v example you mention (an example of 3) and saying, after running the numbers for the Renesis, it doesn't jive with real world numbers (an example of 2) and using a different multiplier or rejecting an obviously incorrect stock hp number.

So long as all of this is written down and transparent and done as consistently as possible, and the resort to real world data limited to only extreme situations, and all done prior to the initial classification, then I'm good with it.

Knestis

08-03-2008, 09:10 AM

I grant you that the differences between those two are minor (and some would suggest, strictly semantical), but respectfully suggest that they are very important:

1. If the multiplier for "families" is established and documented, there's less chance that DIFFERENT subjective results will affect two specifications of cars with the same kind of engine - Repeatability/Consistency

2. If we've got to make our judgments based on more makes/models, we've got a larger data set on which to make them, there's less chance that legend (rather than data) will have large influences.

3. We'd have to be proactive and think things through in advance, rather than use POOMA math in the heat of individual classifications/specifications - Ditto

4. Faced with making a decision that affects multiple manufacturers, political pressures and individual/group competitive motives will decrease, both in reality and in the membership's perceptions of influence. Saying that the Hyundai Elantra gets a 1.1 multiplier is very different than saying that all cars with engines like the Hyundai Elantra get 1.1 - Transparency

K

nsuracer

08-03-2008, 09:53 AM

My prior post was directed at those who advocated strictly using the formula to classify cars and then let the chips fall where they may. It is obvious from reading this loooong thread that that is not happening. I applaud the ITAC for what they do and wouldn't have their job if it was a paid position.

lateapex911

08-03-2008, 10:20 AM

....I applaud the ITAC for what they do and wouldn't have their job if it was a paid position.

LOL.

It's not. Actually, you pay to be on it... :)

OK, to be open, most of you know I'm on the ITAC. And history shows I was a big proponent of the "process" before it was "the process" and getting some cornerstone words removed form the GCR to enable the process to come to fruition. In other words, I'm a process fanboi!.

And, I'm lazy. Well, kinda. I like things that I don't have to remember. So naturally, I like theories, processes and philosophies, because instead of figuring out each situation that comes up, you just slot it into it's spot in a process, and the result is the result. That eliminates lot's of work.

But, sometimes there are problems. Like when the inputs result in outputs that don't align. That's always because the assumptions made on the input end are wrong.

It's historically been handled, as Kirk has pointed out, in a number of ways, mostly involving human interaction, and "fudging" things because of "what we know". In the classic case, a car at the Ruboffs gets 75 pounds because it was too fast. We knew that. We saw it. But we didn't see the guy in second actually did a crappy prep job, ran the wrong alignment, and came back the next year and whipped 'em all, LOL.

We know we don't want that.

Two cars come up. Both have the same engine size, and parameters. 4 valves/cyl, same generation, etc). The first one makes 160 hp. and the second makes 240.. The process applies the gain assumption, (let's say1.2) and the IT power is spit out. There are no adders on either, so the classes get determined by the power, and the cars get the weights calculated, and they get listed. Stop. We're going to have an issue.

The second car is making 120 hp per litre, and the first car is making 80. Is the second car really going to crank out 144 per litre in IT trim?? not likely, as that's beyond what any street based engine architecture has ever done. So, it's obvious to anyone who does homework before building a car that that car is as good as not classed.

We NEED to account for such anomalies, and we do now, by varying the factor and applying torque adders when these cases arise. But I agree we could do it better, and we should find a way to make it more automatic, both to ease the burden, increase consistency and improve the confidence o the organization.

The question is how:

-Is specific output a "trigger" that could be used to enact other processes? (like a research mode to determine real world built power?)
-Is submitted real world data another trigger?

If these are, what protocols should be utilized ?

seckerich

08-03-2008, 09:42 PM

(KIRK)I really like and respect you Steve but I feel like sometimes you don't listen. What I propose - THE CURRENT SYSTEM, for the most part - would likely not change the current RX7 ITS specification at all. It would continue to have a power multiplier based on the best information we have, which at this point seems to be pretty much in the ball park. To be clear...

I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE ROTARIES' POWER QUESTION DIFFERENTLY THAN THE PISTON ENGINES. I said that too.

(STEVE) I did listen Kirk, and you stated the outliers would basically get run through the process and just get a "sorry". I am glad you see the need to treat the rotary properly with the need for a different power number. You failed to quote that I stated you need to be fair and see that some were quoted factory low and make too much in IT trim to be classed at 25% gain. We agree and I was not argueing that, just making the point it has to go both ways.

(KIRK) And when you say, "I personally feel that there was too much politics involved in the decision. Most did not want to class the car at all, and others want it so heavy it can not cause problems," I'm curious precisely who you think you're talking about.

(STEVE) Go back and read the RX8 thread where it was stated it was beyond ITR power levels all together. Not my words.

(KIRK) PLEASE see if you can't find a way to set free what you "know," and try to put yourself in our shoes for a minute. We do NOT know what you know, and we can't simply accept what you know under the circumstances. That doesn't mean you are wrong, that you don't know, or that you aren't trustworthy. It's only a reflection of the fact that we have to work very hard to determine and document that decision, because we are absolutely sure that we can't simply do what we do on a bunch of other cars. With the initial classing, we (well, "I" anyway) made the decision that we honestly believed got the power closest to "right," based on the guidelines we use to implement the process and OUR best understanding of the situation. That we don't agree with you is not proof of shenanigans and it's not fair to say that. If you have EVIDENCE that something funky went on - that we were all brainwashed by one ITAC member or something - spit it out. Or (with all due respect) stop spreading inflammatory stuff. It's not helpful.

(STEVE) We asked for this car to be classified for a year before you actually did it. It was no surprise that you needed to do some research. You were given dyno sheets of stock and IT mod. You were offered a car to dyno with full access to ECU tune and anything else. I only asked to be one data point. I actually expected you to get other information. In the end all you did was use the stock BS 235 and throw 15% at it because that is what the S2000 got. Now that was ground breaking work on the renesis motor.

(KIRK) But thank you for agreeing that the the 12A and 13B are "right." There's a very large body of understanding built up around those cars, and quite simply it's so "friggin' hard" to do that with the '8 because it's not yet to that point. YOU might know what it will do in IT trim, but we can't just let you tell us and be done. It's simply not going to fly without defining proactively what the expectation of quality for evidence is - particularly on a high profile listing. (EDIT - Or we can wait for 20 years of experience with the car to accumulate...?)

(STEVE) See above, not that hard.

(KIRK) Ultimately, where the Renesis is concerned, the answer is between your comment of "If someone can prove it wrong then correct the error and move on," and Kirk's personal policy answer:

"If TRULY compelling evidence becomes available, the ITAC has the power to change a factor but we'd be well advised to have some standards for evidential quality for that step."

Help us develop those "evidential standards" but answering this question: Under what conditions would you place trust in ITR BMW Z4 engine power data, used to specify a power multiplier for ITR classification? NOT "by what standard does Steve assess the validity of Steve's data", but "by what standard does he assess the other guy's?"

(STEVE) Pretty simple. Call TC Cline. He has run these cars in Grand Am for years and the dyno numbers are well known and available. Yes, GA spec motors are IT spec motors. Then check with Bimmerworld, and the other reputable tuners. Yes they will all fudge the numbers down a little but they would be good numbers for comparison sake to see if your process is in the ballpark. Not everyone is out to screw you. You have quotes on HP on a porsche when you call the builders to ask what they can make for you. Think they lie low when they are selling you a motor?

I sincerely apologise for the direction this thread went on the RX8. I thought this was to be an open discussion on what we thought was broken in the process and how it should move forward. It got personal and I am sorry. I did a lot of work to try and get this car classed fairly and it was a total waste of time. Back to warm and fuzzy now. I am done with this discussion and any wish to build an RX8 with current situation.

Catch22

08-03-2008, 11:00 PM

So long as all of this is written down and transparent and done as consistently as possible, and the resort to real world data limited to only extreme situations, and all done prior to the initial classification, then I'm good with it.

Agreed. Consistent and transparent is the key. If you have that, the details matter much less because whatever those details are were consistently and tranparently applied to everyone.

Its the old "The track was wet and greasy for everyone" scenario.

Then all you need is an "out," or ability to adjust later down the road in case there is one or 2 cars you just plain get wrong with the classification (and really, thats inevitable). This is where the slippery slope gets dangerous, but I think its necessary. Thats how you avoid things like "SpecE36" that do significant damage to a class.

Sometimes there just are going to be cars that give you a "Wow, whoda thunk THAT?!?" Sometimes it will be cars that you classed at 25% actually getting 35%, and sometimes it will be the opposite.

But if its consistent and transparent from the outset, fixing the boo boos gets easier too. Funny how that works.

And yes, I know that whole concept makes Kirk want to run to the panic room, but the alternatives are to just leave the mistakes alone (not good) or just close your eyes and chant "we always get it right the first time" over and over again (which is the same as leaving the mistakes alone, just that you claim the mistake doen't exist... not good).

I really, truly, honestly think this isn't as hard as some people make it.
This club has been racing production cars for a looooong time. We know what horsepower does, what good gearing does, what torque does, RWD generally works better than FWD, and the advantages of those pesky DW suspensions. These aren't mysteries.

Establish your targets
Write your formulas (understanding that you'll NEVER make everyone happy)
Include an adjustment clause (not floating comp adjustments... A one time correction in case of "oops")
Publish everything

Soup.