Anyone care to guess what kind of car finished 2nd in ITB this weekend at Summit?
jerry monaghan
Printable View
Anyone care to guess what kind of car finished 2nd in ITB this weekend at Summit?
jerry monaghan
Norm, I had the car classified a few years ago and learned it was put into ITA at 2,450 lbs (which I thought it was pretty silly). But the guys at headquarters told me that within the first two years it can be re-classed if deemed appropriate so who knows. I made an attempt to find some inexpensive 7” rims but found it difficult with the backspace I needed (no diamond rims would fit legally) so I just used some VW 5.5” rims. So the very long winded answer is I do not know first hand.
What type of car placed 2nd in B? The results are not up yet...
------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
No Bill it is not melodramatic. your behavior to Andy and Darin has been rude and obnoxious. If I were them I would not be as nice to you as they have been.Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
A bit melodramatic are we? Or, is it possible that someone suggested that he not shoot his mouth off quite so much, given his position? Or maybe his life is just too busy right now to spend much time here?
If one person's comments are enough to keep someone from posting, their skin is probably a bit too thin to be on an advisory committee.
Dick Patullo
Bill, in all fairness, there's a difference between posting useful information and using every thread as a venue for an all-out frontal assault.
Sometimes you DO post useful information - it just gets lost amid all the confrontationalism.
Bill, it's interesting.... in person I know you as a nice and engaging guy, but on the net, I have become frustrated with your comments. It always seems as though you have a chip on your shoulder or a cross to bear.
We all know the SCCA isn't perfect, but we all also know that it's a freaken club! I know you volunteer in other organizations, and hold yourself to high standards, and that's great. But what most folks around here see is progress with the ITAC, and the SCCA in general, you see as inadequate. In comparision to as little as two years ago, we see significant direction changes. And while we get frustrated by the glacial nature of the change (And look at the car I drive, if anyone has a right to moan and whine, it's me), we are all generally thrilled that the big ship is changing direction.
If you expect perfection and huge massive overnight changes, it aint gonna happen.
My advice? (Worth less that the electricity needed to convey it, but here it is nonetheless)...chill. Sometimes people write things that appear too strong or whatever. Let it slide once or twice. Be less confrontational. These guys are volunteering their time and trying to help...really, I strongly feel that the biggest ITAC posters here, K, Andy and Darin, are VERY nuetral....and just want to help. Let it go once in awhile....
And ...I guarantee that Darin saw this thread with you commentating and said..."ohhh nooo...not me! I aint TOUCHING that!" LOL...
You DO have excellent points, but they get lost in the spicy sauce, I am afraid..
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 21, 2005).]
OK, sorry, once in awhile I have to do something I regret...I hope that last post wasn't it!
Back on topic...the subject IS interesting as it has evolved a bit into a "what REALLY belongs in B, and not A?" (and to an extent,C?) The "trickle down concept.
I think the MR2 isn't a real ITA car, and I hate the term "tweeners"
So, my question is, in general, do we have to have popular well documented cars that are "tweeners"??? Or can we find a way to place them where they have a chance?
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Jake,
Wasn't aware that Kirk (I assume that's who you meant by K) was on the ITAC. Had a great time w/ those guys at Summit Point, and the subject never came up. In fact, I don't think we 'talked shop' at all.
Notice that I didn't say anything when the July FT came out, and the request (actually Andy, only the 3rd or 4th one) to move the Rabbit GTI was shot down. I didn't really say anything about it in this thread either. All I did was mention that I wrote a letter about publishing the performance parameters for the given classes. I didn't direct it to anyone at all. Wasn't looking for a response from anyone. Andy figures he can make some smart-ass comment about it (pretty much a textbook case of trolling).
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the work that people are doing to make things better in IT. What I have a problem with, is the selective, subjective, and inconsistent way things are applied. I don't want to see fairness and equity traded away to get change. It's one of the reasons I've been such a strong proponent of an open, defined process. It minimizes the perception of inequity or favoritism, and it helps maintain consistency when committee members change. I get really nervous when people say that it's bad if people know how things are done. And the stronger that people argue against an open process, the more it appears that they're trying to hide something.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 22, 2005).]
Ahhh, you got me. I took a quick look. 5 letters with 9 seperate requests for action...my bad! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gifQuote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Notice that I didn't say anything when the July FT came out, and the request (actually Andy, only the 3rd or 4th one) to move the Rabbit GTI was shot down.
Onto the Toyotas. How much extra weight should an MR2 weigh than a FX16 if they were to be in ITB together? Just a debate question.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
You know what Andy, never mind. I'm not going to let you bait me into that.
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 22, 2005).]
I'll send them to you offline, complete with their log numbers dating back to December of 2003. Drop me an e-mail.Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Ok Andy, you want to play that game. Maybe you'll tell people what those specific requests were (weren't some of them related to the 1.7 VWs going to ITC?). And maybe then you can tell me why not all of them have gotten responses. So much for you being 'done'. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/rolleyes.gif
Side note about moving cars down AND increasing the weight on them. Would seem that if lead were required to move them, that w/o the lead they 'fit w/in the performance parameters' of their current class.
To your last point...it's a good one to consider. I think there are difinate 'tweeners' that could be lightened and fit better in current class or weighted down and be moved.
Specific action would depend on demand and availability. For instance, I think the Neon to ITA was brilliant. Many SS cars out there and drivers ready to move into Club Racing that may have had experience in SOlo with them. One that might be questionable...(choose your brand) a rare car that no letters have come in on.
A risk is taken anytime a move is made. Taking that risk is worth it is there is a reward...some cars just wouldn't provide that reward IMHO.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Jake: I like your suggestion for examining car classifications, but would like to add that results from as many tracks as possible be examined, as well as the driver (is the car being driven as fast as it can in that stage of prep.) In order to do that, someone would have to gather all the results from all the divisions. (OK, I'll stop there, as that could easily lead to a thread hijack!)
------------------
Bill Stevens
Mbr 103106
BnS Racing
83 ITA Shelby Dodge Charger
www.motorpride.com/BnSRacing
deleted..
[This message has been edited by bodyshop (edited June 22, 2005).]
Andy makes a VERY important point here. I pondered this when I read that the 914 was in B, thinking that it is never going to provide fodder for growth or lasting participation in the class. It will, no doubt, inject some variety which is arguably a good thing - I believe, anyway - but having an oddball end up being a really competitive option creates more problems than it solves in terms of the "good of the class." Read your SCCA history on the Turner in the (pre-LP) Production ranks.Quote:
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
... A risk is taken anytime a move is made. Taking that risk is worth it is there is a reward...some cars just wouldn't provide that reward IMHO.
All that said, this conversation starting to give me the willies, as I worry that we are getting close to crossing the line where "performance compensation adjustments" functionally become "performance adjustments."
PS - If I AM on the ITAC, I missed the memo making the appointment. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif
Hey, wait a minute, I thought this thread was about ITB Corollas! It made me re-think the 80-82 1.8L hemi cars. I decided to recheck my specs in the 2005 rulebook, and I discover that they are not listed anymore! What happened? I got one that is sitting around and can be had for next to nothing and now I cant run it? Was this a official declassification or just an oversight during the printing of the new rulebook? Help? Anyone? Bueller??
Bill, thanks for your measured response. My bad. I hit K instead of G...not sure why..they aren't even close! Meaning Geo, or george Roffe, who sometimes appears to be opininated, but does have the ability to change his position.Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,
Wasn't aware that Kirk (I assume that's who you meant by K) was on the ITAC.
Sorry Kirk! (but you would be a great addition)
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
I'm going to spill the beans on you Jake...
Gentlemen, as of a few weeks ago, Jake Gulick is now an official member of the SCCA ITAC... taking the place of Chris Camadella in helping to represent the Northeastern part of the country...
I'm sure he'll do fine... (carrying the target for awhile! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif )
Carry on guys... http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
We're doomed....
Seriously, congratulations Jake. Glad you are on the ITAC. Maybe see you at the ARRC this year....
Congradulations Jake!!! You'll make a great addition.
Congrats Jake!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Yeah, I second that!Quote:
Originally posted by Jiveslug:
Hey, wait a minute, I thought this thread was about ITB Corollas! It made me re-think the 80-82 1.8L hemi cars. I decided to recheck my specs in the 2005 rulebook, and I discover that they are not listed anymore! What happened? I got one that is sitting around and can be had for next to nothing and now I cant run it? Was this a official declassification or just an oversight during the printing of the new rulebook? Help? Anyone? Bueller??
Am I going to be stuck in pergatory forever?
I don't actually want to go to B, but would rather be able to run faster in A...
The MR2 and Corolla GT-S are very similar in performance.. for all the touted mid-engine advantages of the MR2, I find them the same (Having both) - each has its advantages, and I actually prefer the Corolla (RWD mind you) on the race track, and the MR2 for street or auto-x...
Jake/Andy et. al, these are 'tweener' cars, and generally don't run with the rx-7 OR the crx/integra, etc, etc.. in A.. what to do?
My buddy calls me the lover of the 'one eyed orphan', but I like the cars, and would like a reasonable home to race them in. Its kept me out of racing here in Cen-div the last couple years.
[This message has been edited by Spinnetti (edited June 23, 2005).]
So the question comes down to this. MR2 and Corolla GT-S - do they make sense in ITB at current weight, the FX-16 weight, or a higher weight - and if so, what?
Andy posed the question as "how much more than the FX-16", but that assumes that the FX-16 is weighted perfectly. It's probably not far off. Is the FX competitive in B?
Thanks guys....
My haz mat suit is being talored as I type. Give me until Monday befire cussing me out, OK? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
THis is an interesting thread, and the question brings up other questions.
I saw a comment about not wanting to go to B. WHy not? The expense of new wheels? The local B crowd is too stron/not strong enough?? Curious...
THe bigger question here is, can the "tweeners" be given allowances suitable that would get them in the front with the CRX, Integra and 240SX? Or is that just not possible. (THink top flight cars here..)
Would you be satisfied with getting closer as opposed to going to B? Or do you advocate slowing down the fast A cars....all 5 or 6 of them?
I'm trying to get a big picture concept here...
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
It seems to me that the flood gates have opened and there are many compatible cars now in ITA. Some are new, but many came down from where they were outclassed in ITS. The field is beginning to look like Kirk’s IT2 utopia. At this point, I wouldn’t propose anything to reign in any of them.
As for the back-packers of ITA, I’m not aware of anything that could be done to speed ‘em up, but of course it must be a case by case basis. As for the MR2 – lowering its weight would do nothing, because 2370 is already very hard to get down to within the ITA rules. I believe that is the same story for the GT-S. I’m not aware of anything else that could be done in the framework of IT.
I'm not sure why anyone would be opposed to a move to ITB, unless it comes at a such a weight penalty that it doesn't do much to help competitiveness. In that case the sole effect would be to slow the car, and make people buy new wheels. That would be a shame.
I agree Jake, more and more cars will be coming into ITS and ITA. The current SS cars are faster than they used to be, not that there is anything wrong with this.
I wouldnt mind starting the 88 GTS at 2450 and working with that, I think it would be better lighter, but this is a good starting point.
I could live with 2450 in B for the MR2.
And since you opened (or at least looked at) that can of worms - how about moving the MkII ('91 - '95) MR2 from S to A. It has both less power and more weight than the SOHC Neon that was just moved.
^ 88 GTS ITB I forgot to say. I think this is a sign that I should be in bed
That reminds me, I saw a nice ITS mk2 mr2 at Roebling.
On the plate already. I advocate it.Quote:
Originally posted by ITANorm:
I could live with 2450 in B for the MR2.
And since you opened (or at least looked at) that can of worms - how about moving the MkII ('91 - '95) MR2 from S to A. It has both less power and more weight than the SOHC Neon that was just moved.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Of course, at this point, I would have to interject my feeling that the Toyotas are, generally speaking, classed poorly. They seem to either be classed too high (Celicas in ITS???) or WAAAAAYYYY too heavy (86-88 Celicas in ITA at 2680lbs and 135hp stock). I personally really like the Toys. They are bulletproof cars and can be had for relatively little cash outlay. Look at the second gen MR2 in ITS at 2500+ lbs. That only has 130hp stock. It reminds me of what a lot of folks used to say about the comp board having issues with anything made by Porsche. Is there a reason why all of the cars from one manufacturer get classed so poorly? Now that we have moved the Sentra SE-R and Neons to ITA with similar stock horsepower and much better weight, why cant we revise the spec sheets on some of these Toyotas that CAN be viable racers IF spec'd correctly?
Jive,
They should. Can't ever explain how some of the weights got the way they are. Maybe a letter to the CRB with the cars you want reviewed would be in order.
I would think that if some are WAY off, they could be corrected on a one-time basis...
MHO,
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Is anyone else bothered by this? People asking for things for specific cars is tantamount to requesting a comp. adjustment. Kirk already commented that he was worried that this was the way things were headed. Andy (and others on the ITAC) have already said that they don't know how weights were determined, prior to their tenure on the ITAC.Quote:
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Maybe a letter to the CRB with the cars you want reviewed would be in order.
As I've said before, if there's a new process that's implemented, that's supposed to be a more objective method of determining spec weights, shouldn't all the cars be run through that process? If this PCA really isn't going to turn into comp. adj., it needs to be an ITAC/CRB driven initiative, not a response to member requets.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Bill and I don't usually seem to agree on much, but I think we are on the same page here. When PCA's were brought in the stated intent (oh no I said the "i" word) was that they would only be used in extreme cases to correct gross classification errors. By soliciting letters for adjustments of cars with a long stable history I think you are opening the flood gates. It's rare to find a racer that doesn't think his car is somehow at a disadvantage and now you are asking for everyone to write in with what they want changed. It might be one thing for the ITAC to independantly note cars that seem well out of line and act to correct the RARE error. But trying to use PCA's to achieve class parity is another thing entirely. One of the things I have always liked about IT is the relative stability of the classifications, even if that means my car is further from the new class frontrunners every year.
On that note, I think dropping 200 lbs of my minimum weight would restore my competitivness in ITA. Any chance the ITAC is going to do that? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/eek.gif
------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
Doesn't bother me in the least... Who said anything about using PCAs to "restore parity"???Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Is anyone else bothered by this?
PCAs are intended for reigning in overdogs, and for making classification adjustments when a car was misclassified...
I can assure you that Andy, I, or any other ITAC member... (well, maybe not Jake yet, but he will! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif ) knows exactly what PCAs are intended for, and we will use them for exactly that...
If any "parity restoration" is to take place, any cases that don't fall within the intent of PCAs will be handled by other means/methods, with CRB/BoD approval, and on a one-time, or limited time basis...
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here who believes that there needs to be some adjustments made to all the classes to get things back in "check"... Getting a list of cars together that need consideration is part of the research for any action that may help with this. THAT is what Andy solicited...
The suggesting that PCAs would be used to accomplish this was NOT introduced by any ITAC member that I can recall... so make sure you know the source before running off down this trail... because the ITAC has not suggested or otherwise said that this is what would happen...
Finally, "parity" is not really an achievable goal for IT... there simply isn't enough data (real hp, etc.) or leway in the rule allowances to truely achieve this, if it were even possible... Our goal is to create classifications that make "sense"... putting cars in the classes they belong in, in configurations (weights) that make sense... We'll get the cars as closely matched as simple weight adjustments will allow, and leave the "competitiveness" up to those building and driving these cars... In other words, we are trying to get the mechanical properties of these cars matched up as much as possible by estimating IT prep hp and making some eductated assumptions about handling, reaction to IT-prep, etc... Getting them up front is going to up to you...
All we can do is hope that's good enough... I think you'll find it's better than it has been...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited June 24, 2005).]
I just wanted to point out that a letter might be in order if you think your car has a serious issue. we just got a request for a 50lb break - THAT is just not what PCA's are for. If you think your car is a couple hundred - some would consider that extreme - then write. No promises or guarantees, just get your self on the radar. Plenty of squeeky wheels on this site but the question never asked will always go unanswered.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
I'm guessing that Andy's comment was made as a quick response that is getting blown out of proportion. But, to some people it will read like an open invitation to get their car adjusted and I didn't think you guys had a shortage of requests and complaints? http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif
In particular Andy's comment was in response to issues with Celicas and 2nd Gen MR2's. Possibly just toyotas in general. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif Both of those cars have been classified years ago so talking about using PCA's to adjust their performance now seems a little outside of what the original PCA scope was. And of course once you start moving a couple cars everyone will want an adjustment. We stand at the top of the slippery slope.
And Darin, I am sorry if I implied that any ITAC member was trying to make parity adjustments. You're right that hasn't been stated here. But it does appear to be a recurring theme that you guys are trying to come up with a plan to restore balance. I would be all for that as long as every car is considered, not just the ones writing in letters. That's really what concerns me and Andy's comment stike's a nerve in that respect.
While nobody has come out and said adjustments are on the way several people (including ITAC memebers) are hinting about the writing on the wall. I have a lot of confidence in the ITAC eventually finding a good solution but until they do any perceived change in policy is going to make a lot of us nervous.
Sorry for the long winded response. Can we now get back to the usual arguments. Oh wait this is one of the usual arguments. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif
------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96
Actually Darin, I don't think anybody did, until you mentioned it. However, the ITCS does say that PCAs will be used to restore equity within a class. But, I'm not going to get into a debate w/ you about the differences between 'parity' and 'equity', although they're synonyms.Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Doesn't bother me in the least... Who said anything about using PCAs to "restore parity"???
Actually Darin, don't you think it would be nice if all the IT racers (and potential IT racers) knew what PCAs were intended for, and how they will be used? You make it seem like it's only something you get let in on when you're "in the club".Quote:
PCAs are intended for reigning in overdogs, and for making classification adjustments when a car was misclassified...
I can assure you that Andy, I, or any other ITAC member... (well, maybe not Jake yet, but he will! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif ) knows exactly what PCAs are intended for, and we will use them for exactly that...
Which is it Darin, PCAs will be used for parity restoration, or they won't?Quote:
If any "parity restoration" is to take place, any cases that don't fall within the intent of PCAs will be handled by other means/methods, with CRB/BoD approval, and on a one-time, or limited time basis...
Darin,Quote:
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one here who believes that there needs to be some adjustments made to all the classes to get things back in "check"... Getting a list of cars together that need consideration is part of the research for any action that may help with this. THAT is what Andy solicited...
Please let Andy speak for himself.
What suggestion was that? I lost you on that one.Quote:
The suggesting that PCAs would be used to accomplish this was NOT introduced by any ITAC member that I can recall... so make sure you know the source before running off down this trail... because the ITAC has not suggested or otherwise said that this is what would happen...
Guess that's why the E36 got an inlet restrictor instead of lead.Quote:
Finally, "parity" is not really an achievable goal for IT... there simply isn't enough data (real hp, etc.) or leway in the rule allowances to truely achieve this, if it were even possible... Our goal is to create classifications that make "sense"... putting cars in the classes they belong in, in configurations (weights) that make sense... We'll get the cars as closely matched as simple weight adjustments will allow,
------------------Quote:
and leave the "competitiveness" up to those building and driving these cars... In other words, we are trying to get the mechanical properties of these cars matched up as much as possible by estimating IT prep hp and making some eductated assumptions about handling, reaction to IT-prep, etc... Getting them up front is going to up to you...
All we can do is hope that's good enough... I think you'll find it's better than it has been...
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 24, 2005).]
Yup. I got more worried rather than less when I saw the suggestion that letters be written.
Whatever the intent - and shared understanding of the ITAC - the point at which members are requesting adjustments for cars, based on grounds that they are not competitive, the minor semantic differences are noise lost in a powerful signal.
The point at which the CRB responds positively to these requests - when someone gets what they want - then the horses are well and truly out of the barn.
If that's what everyone wants, that's great but it can't be explained away if functionally, that's what happens.
K
People writing letters requesting that their car be made more competitive or another be made less...are not new. We have received them almost every month since I started this. They will never stop.
How did the ITS SE-R, Neon, 2.0 16V VW, etc go to ITA? We looked at the classes and saw what we perceived to be gross issues. That, coupled with some supporting letters promted a move.
I would like to continue to ferret out the 'issues', both proactively and with the help of membership. Some will get consideration if they make sense, some will get rejected based on a variety of reasons. *I* don't want to mess with small shifts here, and small shifts there...it just isn't the scope, nor is it practical or possible...but I'll be danged if I vote to let the MR2 in ITS flounder around there when it fits perfectly in ITA with the current crop. It's just plain mis-classed. It ain't a tweener, it can NEVER be competitive in ITS. I think that would be a good move for the car, the class, and IT.
What I won't do is vote to lighten a car by 50 lbs because someone writes in and thinks it could move them to the podium. 50lbs??? That ain't IT, thats PROD. But what I also won't do is discourage ANYONE from writing in and expressing their opinion...about their car or any other - on any topic. I may not agree, but it is ALWAYS good to be heard if you believe in what you are saying...THAT was my point.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Hmmm... so maybe an MR2 class change is in the future. Wait, I got an idea... put the 87-92 MR2 in the same spec line and I can loose my 1.6L enigine and pop in a 2.2L! http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif (sorry - had to say it)
Andy - very well said.
I think we actually agree, Andy. There's a world of difference between...
1. The ITCS looking at the ITS MR2, deciding that it is clearly wrong based on physical attributes, and re-examining the placement (and weight, most likely) because - among other things - pretty much nobody is dumb enough to try to run one. That's how I understand PCA's as intended to work.
2. Somone writing a letter asking for a break - class move, weight break - on their (whatever), on the basis that it isn't competitive. That's a [competition] adjustment.
It sounds like Andy has clarified the difference for himself but how about a few years from now, when the ITCS is populated by people without the institutional memory of where the idea started?
K
Edit - I typed "performance" when I meant "competition." The language matters in this case.
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 25, 2005).]