PCA Responses... or LACK THEREOF!!!

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

That paragraph also mentioned that 'other factors', that were not enumerated, were used. But it didn't say that all factors were weighted the same for all cars, that's the issue. Without that, it's really nothing more than a SWAG.

In modeling and regression analysis, there can be many factors. However, through the analysis, you can determine which ones have a significant impact on the outcome and which ones don't. For example, I'd be willing to bet that solid vs. vented rotors (same diameter) plays a pretty small part (if even discernable from the 'noise' of driver skill and prep level) in the performance factor of a car. And maybe that's where the rub lies. You talk about all these factors that are 'moving targets', but I contend that most of them get burried due to the background noise (skill and prep).

And, if you look back in the archives, I never advocated a one-shot deal w/ a formula. I advocate a published, simple, evenly applied formula,, and subsequent weight adjustments based on how close the formula was. Look at the formula as a first apporoximation.

/edit/ I know people have argued against a moving weight target w/ the above proposal, but how is that any different than the current PCA proposal? They're talking about potentially changing the weight after the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year, and maybe yet again in the future.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 21, 2003).]

[Knestis]

FWIW, the "index" cars that emerged from my math - the ones that would change weight almost not at all in the transition to the formula - were...

ITB - MkII Golf
ITA - Civic Si HB
ITS - e30 BMW 325

Note that the index for ITA would be relatively lower with IT2 poked in there, and I didn't have crap for data for ITC.

I understand you point, Andy but the part of that system that bothers me so much is that it essentially tries to "handicap" cars - using the word distinctly - by looking at their performance on the track, right? The way you know that cars need adjusting is that they turn fast times and win?

In order to even begin to apply "...published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency...", you must first disregard the biggest influences on lap times and finishing position - driver skill, testing and tire budget, preparation level, and engineering talent.

If these critical factors aren't being ignored completely, then they are at least being considered but AT BEST in an extremely informal, subjective manner.

We all seem to "know" that the e36 Bimmer is a dominant winner in ITS. How? Because we keep seeing them win. That seems obvious enough but what if the REAL reason that this particular car "looks like" a winner is because BMW racers have disproportionately larger budgets? They are more likely to buy new tires each weekend and pay James Clay to build them a car that never breaks down. If someone spent $50K building a Triumph TR8, it might "look like" a winner, too.

How do you chase out the driver skill factor? It's a very different thing in a competition-adjustment system when Bob Stretch (or any other recognized talent) is driving the only example of a Nissan 240, than it is if there are a lot of them out there in the hands of drivers with varying skill. There are enough CRXs in ITA that they are spread all the way through the field now. Is the fact that they monopolize the podium evidence that they are overdogs or is it equally fair to say that they are correctly placed because the last three places in the class were held by the same model of car, and were two laps down at the end of a regional?

This kind of system, regardless of what it is called, is almost worse than SWAGing. It turns into something that's almost like social engineering, trying to make everyone equal.

That's what a formulaic system tries to avoid. I am advocating not "equality" on the track - manipulating specs such that every dog can have his day - but instead, am picturing a system that provides a level playing field to allow engineering and driving skill to sort things out.

Bill's point about noise is a great one but I would suggest that he stops short of completing it: The noise (variance) of driver skill ALONE is louder (greater) than brakes, suspension design, aero drag, and a thousand other factors. We ALL know of cases where a fast driver suddenly makes an uncompetitive car run up front, right? We would NEVER consider handicapping drivers themselves, would we?

FasTrack Item: "Any driver who has won a national championship must tape over the left half of his/her visor. Any driver who has won an ARRC title must drive with one hand taped to his/her chest." Effective immediately.

That sounds looney, right? But if we aren't willing to do that, why are we considering adjusting the cars that they drive quickly when their skill has more to do with their finishing record than does the make of car?

If the cars start out something like level, the rest will sort itself out but we have to agree that the point is for the sorting to be based on talent. That's where we differ.

K

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Don't get me wrong, I like the basic concept, and if we were to start with a fresh slate, and a controlled sample of similar cars, (and less than 100 of them!), I would be all for it.

Which is why I think Kirk's formula works so well inside the IT2 framework.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[ITSRX7]

If we are talking about INITIAL classifications here then why would anyone think that car prep and driver skill were factors? This is BEFORE said car turns a competitive wheel, right? The CB is classing based on performance POTENTIAL. If there was a $50K TR8 out there, could it contend in ITS? Maybe - and that's a GOOD thing.

When you class cars, you are effectively COMPARING them to all that is around them and the competition potential those cars have - you always have to compare apples an apples. I think Bill and Kirk have a fundamental problem with trusting the powers that be that they are looking beyond Regional results when they look at on-track performance - I can tell you that we fully understand that you have to look at the best vehicals with the best drivers to even begin to draw conclusions. Take away that core lack of trust and I think you will understand better.

I would love to have a formula-based foundation setter for classing and weights - but *I* UNDERSTAND that is only about 1/4 of the work that must go in to get to the final numbers...I would be willing to bet you WELL OVER half of the membership won't grasp the rest. It's like giving 2 people 1/4 of the same ingrediants to a recipe - then giving one dog food and the other a steak - it won't make sense to people, they will NEED to know the process and it isn't feasible to show everyone everytime.

I think we have beat this down. The lack of negative response from FasTrack on the PCA issue tells me the membership is overwhelmingly for the initiative.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited October 21, 2003).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
FWIW, the "index" cars that emerged from my math - the ones that would change weight almost not at all in the transition to the formula - were...

ITB - MkII Golf
ITA - Civic Si HB
ITS - e30 BMW 325

Note that the index for ITA would be relatively lower with IT2 poked in there, and I didn't have crap for data for ITC.

Kirk... why wouldn't you base your "base", on the "basic" cars for each class?? The cars you have selected here are hardly the traditional performers for the class, and there can't be that much data on them, as far as performance potential goes... Was that the point??

I guess what I'm wondering is why would you pick the realitive newcomer "overdogs" for these classes? Cars which most would agree (don't know about the Golf in ITB...) are improperely classed/weighted in the first place?

I would contend that if you picked a different standard for each class, you'd end up with a "pivot point" of sorts by which cars would either be slightly higher than (weight), or slightly lower than, thereby making it more reasonable to adjust weight around...

It also seems to me that by picking the BMW and the Civic SI, the emphasis would be on speeding up the rest of the cars in the class, which we all know is more expensive and more difficult to achieve... What would have happened had the 1st Gen RX-7 or the RX-3 been selected for ITA? What about the 240Z or 2nd Gen RX-7 or even the 944 in ITS??? These are the more traditional cars with much more history behind them, and are therefor a known quanity, around which the rest of the class would pivot.

Not attacking, just asking....

Thanks,


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 21, 2003).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
...you must first disregard the biggest influences on lap times and finishing position - driver skill, testing and tire budget, preparation level, and engineering talent...

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this idea that we have to "disregard" some of these items...

What is it we are trying to do here? Isn't it to determine, understand, or otherwise evaluate the performance POTENTIAL for each vehicle? Many seem so willing to cast to the side valuable data that could help us determine that. Who better to show us what a car can do than those that can prepare, develop, and drive it the best? Does that not show us it's POTENTIAL??

It may not be spelled out for you in the wording, but reasonable people can use this information to NOT make an adjustment (the glass is half full), just as easily as they could use it to make an adjustment (the glass is half empty)...

These are the same people that would have to determine if the classification weight that the formula spits out makes any sense, so one way or the other, you're going to have to have faith in the system at some point...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[EscortGT]

Quick thoughts... I have a 93 Escort GT which the SCCA does not currently classify (They class a 91 which is the almost the same, but not quite.). Now im a brand new driver, so lets say i race this car for two years and i suck... so i get down-graded. Someone else then comes in and races a well prepped GT in the same class as me, and destroys the competition because they're a better driver, in a better car than i am. The reverse could also be true could it not? no opinion as im not experienced enough, just a thought.

Jc

[EscortGT]

I never realised that this topic was 3 pages long till i replied... oops... the comment is still relevant but you guys had the subjecy covered...

Jc

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by EscortGT:
Now im a brand new driver, so lets say i race this car for two years and i suck... so i get down-graded.

First, Welcome to IT...

Basically, if YOU "suck", then why would any change be made? If Joe Racer gets in your car and still can't make it go, then perhaps it's a case worth looking at.

IT has traditionally been a "hands off" type of class, and I don't know if there is any rush to change that. There is a reason why the clause "on rare occasion" was used...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
If Joe Racer gets in your car and still can't make it go, then perhaps it's a case worth looking at.

I would also add: IF and only IF the car has been developed to the Nth degree. You have to have a top driver in a highly prepped car to make any value judgements. 99% of cars and drivers out there don't fall into this category.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

I think what Kirk meant was that those three cars were the ones that best 'fit' his model. In other words, they were the ones who's current spec. weight was the closest to the 'predicted' weight, by his model. I don't know which version of the Civic Si he was referring to, but I suspect it is the earlier one, rather than the later one, and I don't recall the E30 325 being an overdog.

Andy,

I think we have beat this down. The lack of negative response from FasTrack on the PCA issue tells me the membership is overwhelmingly for the initiative.

I must say, I'm surprised at that comment. That sounds like the Florida people from the last election. All you can say about lack of negative responses is that people don't have an opinion. Now, if you're talking about how many more positive responses you've gotten than negative responses, then you can say that. BTW, just how many positive responses have you gotten? Darin said that there have only been 16 total responses.

You can't say that people approve if they don't say no! All you can say is that they don't have an opinion, one way or the other.

BTW, I'm glad to see that all you were worried about was 'beating down' an alternative idea.

As far as me not trusting the powers that be, you're right, I don't. There have been too many back-room deals and inconsistencies in the past.

I challenge you to show me how using an initial formula followed by subsequent adjustments (if warranted) differs from the PCA proposal.

You mentioned new car classifications. Don't you think that people recognize when a potential front-runner has been classified? Wanna bet on how many A3 Golfs you'll see in ITB grids next year? I bet it's at least 2x-3x the number that were in ITA grids.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...In other words, they were the ones who's current spec. weight was the closest to the 'predicted' weight, by his model. I don't know which version of the Civic Si he was referring to, but I suspect it is the earlier one, rather than the later one, and I don't recall the E30 325 being an overdog.

You may be right, maybe Kirk can clarify. Also, I mistook the "E30" for a typo... thought he was referring to an "E36"... If you plug that into his formula, it yields the exact classfication weight (2850) for that car, which is an additional reason why I thought he was referring to these cars as the "standards" for the class, and the basis of his calculations...

That being said, I still think that these are NOT the prototypical cars for their various classes, and that if we were to use something with more background and time in competition, even the formula would be more accurate and better represent the respective classes.

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 21, 2003).]

[Knestis]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I think we have beat this down. The lack of negative response from FasTrack on the PCA issue tells me the membership is overwhelmingly for the initiative.</font>

This makes me want to not play anymore. Screw the ITAC, screw the club, and screw the entire process if this is the thinking.

Let me translate this into a broader context: I can get a tiny percentage of the voting population in my state to sign a petition, get an initiative on the ballot, then write it such that anyone who doesn't freaking vote gets counted as being in support of my plan? Absofukinlutely NOT okay. If this is how we are going to do this, I will direct all future correspondence to the BOD and President.

Congratulations.

K

[ITSRX7]

Well now I understand why Kirk and Bill can never be happy. You only read what you want to and then respond with haste.

I have stated - at least 3 previous times (why no blow up then?) - that it was MY interpritation of such a poor response. Let me say it again: When the CB puts an idea out for member comment, you can assume its an idea that they are thinking about putting into action. The very nature of people is that they only speak up when they have an axe to grind. Your ballot example is just plain off. This was an idea put out for member comment and nobody commented. INDIFFERENCE.

So the conclusion *I* draw is that with ONLY 16 letters, half for and half against (about) shows me that there are a lot of people who support - or at the VERY LEAST are indifferent about the idea. Even if all 16 letters were resounding NO's, is that such a large sample that we are to assume they represent the entire membership? Plllease. Is OK with you guys to assume that the THOUSANDS of members who didn't write in are indifferent? How do we count the people who don't express an opinion seeing as how we have received LESS THAN 20 opinions?

And to assert that I am 'beating' down a new idea is frankly insulting. I have sat back and watched you, Bill, get into written clashes with people and now I understand why. Damn that comment P's me off. IMO, you just don't get it. At the very least, you don't get me, and I can live with that.

I apologize to others for the harsh remarks but I am through with trying to explain simple philosophies and big pictures when all some people want is 'to know how', regardless of the process. I feel like I am talking to a 3 year old sometimes, why, why, why, why...because someting just HAVE TO BE because they make sense.

I hate to have to post like this because I feel like I am all over the board like a wild man but I have been poked for the last time.

Like I tried to do before, feel free to contact me offline if you have any comments or would like to engage in an intelligent debate.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
I think we have beat this down. The lack of negative response from FasTrack on the PCA issue tells me the membership is overwhelmingly for the initiative.

AB

From this comment, I presume you mean that bad news takes the "A" train....in other words, folks will be quick to bitch and squeal when they disagree, but go on with their business when they think things are going their way??

If so, I would agree. If there were vast objections, you would know it by now.

In the case of the 'slow' Escort getting moved down, I don't see the philosophical position of the PCAs, if I understand them correctly, and I believe I do, as supporting that kind of movement. Instead, I think that they will be used as methods of "fixing" (sorry guys!) ITAC and CB misses during the initial weight setting procedure, and as a method of reeling in some of the run away cars that currently exist. Now, IF you and a whole flock of your fellow Escort drivers start cleaning up, and it's easy to see that the Escorts are being driven at 9/10ths, and they still romp, even in the hands of known mid pack drivers, well, get ready for some extra weight, or a move upstream. On the other hand, if you guys are getting slammed at every event, and some known shoes have driven and helped develop a few of them, then maybe, just maybe, you can present a case, with stats and facts to back up your claim, that will result in attention from the ITAC and CB, and in a rare case result in a weight break.

Am I close on that ITAC guys?

What I see, and what I proposed, was a system that could be used to "skim the top", and in super rare and obvious cases, bring up a bottom dweller IF it's a popular model. I suggested leaving the stability that everyone prizes alone as much as possible, but having a method to circle in on a target.

One of the benefits of having the ITAC is getting guys that are on the track and have their ears close to the pavement to help identify cases that fit the above situations.

As a racer, it is often easier to spot 'performance' as you drive against other cars, than it can be by looking at cold numbers. After that, you need to look at all the variables, of course, to determine where that performance comes from. In the end, the on track experience, the experience of others, the cold specifications and numbers, and, dare I say it, the results, can tell a compelling story.


(On edit, I see that Andy was busy typing 200 miles north while I was doing the same, but he submitted first. So, sorry for a bit of redundance.)
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 21, 2003).]

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

You're the one that was celebrating beating down an idea, not me. If you want to get pissed at me for pointing that out, go right ahead.

And I'd still like for you to show me how the net result of published formula/adjustments is different from the net result of the PCA proposal. Even if the formula isn't perfect, at least it's out in the open. The PCA thing is really no different than things are today, except that the potential to maybe correct a possible mistake exits. You'll still have people scratching their heads wondering how certain cars end up where they do. And people will still wonder if the process if fair and equitable, or if people are taking care of themselves or their friends. But I guess you just don't "get" why that is an issue.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

You're the one that was celebrating beating down an idea, not me. If you want to get pissed at me for pointing that out, go right ahead.

Bill,

'Celebrating beating down an idea' is a tortured statement. How do I put it so you can understand? The issue has been "beat to death". No new opinions were being expressed and the debate was turning counter-productive. Geez.

And I'd still like for you to show me how the net result of published formula/adjustments is different from the net result of the PCA proposal. Even if the formula isn't perfect, at least it's out in the open. The PCA thing is really no different than things are today, except that the potential to maybe correct a possible mistake exits. You'll still have people scratching their heads wondering how certain cars end up where they do. And people will still wonder if the process if fair and equitable, or if people are taking care of themselves or their friends. But I guess you just don't "get" why that is an issue.

What I get is that people like you will never be happy no matter what the solution. If you had a formula that established a baseline, you would want the whole process spelled out for you on paper becasue you couldn't understand how you got from Point A to Point B. There are SUBJECTIVE factors that must be accounted for - and the non-trusting folks like yourself will always think the 'system' is trying to screw them, or the guy next to you got the favor from the CB, etc.

I gave you the reasons I thought it was a bad idea a few posts ago. If you disagree, so be it. We can agree to be on opposite sides of the fence on that. As a competitor, I always want to err on the side of accuracy vs. transparency but that is just me. I have also written numerous time WHY I think formulas are less accurate in this scenario. The "net result" may be the same but the road to that result, transparent as it may seem with a formula/adjustment scenario, is much rockier and harder to help people understand - reasons in previous post.

I think the reason you and I get under each others skin a little too much is because you have a general distrust for the system and I have been "the system". I have served in many capacities such as this over my (short by some standards) 14 year SCCA career and have always put the club first - and known all whom I have worked with to do the same. There is just so little to gain from this that I just don't see what the point is to 'working the system'.

In a couple years, if this particular branch of the Club Racing system has chewed me up and spit me out because I felt like I was spinning my wheels against internal political factors, I will gladly post the whos, whats and wheres here. Until then, lets recognize the CB's effort to change the direction of the IT ship by adding a little flexibilty in the way the classes are made up.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
The lack of negative response from FasTrack on the PCA issue tells me the membership is overwhelmingly for the initiative.

Did we read the same recent letters?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Joe Harlan]

Andy: I just want to say thanks to you and the other members that are at least trying to work with the comp-bod to get some attention paid to IT. I have sent a positive response letter to the CB because I feel that what you guys are trying at least gives us a shot at correcting past mistakes. I feel that we can get this done using the existing classes we have and moving cars around to get them there.

Oh and even though I like Bill he does get to be a boil on my Butt sometimes...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
...if I understand them correctly, and I believe I do, as supporting that kind of movement. Instead, I think that they will be used as methods of "fixing" (sorry guys!) ITAC and CB misses during the initial weight setting procedure, and as a method of reeling in some of the run away cars that currently exist. Now, IF you and a whole flock of your fellow Escort drivers start cleaning up, and it's easy to see that the Escorts are being driven at 9/10ths, and they still romp, even in the hands of known mid pack drivers, well, get ready for some extra weight, or a move upstream. On the other hand, if you guys are getting slammed at every event, and some known shoes have driven and helped develop a few of them, then maybe, just maybe, you can present a case, with stats and facts to back up your claim, that will result in attention from the ITAC and CB, and in a rare case result in a weight break.

Am I close on that ITAC guys?

It's late, and there has been a lot to read here tonight, but it sounds like you and I see about the same thing, so yes, I think you are close...

I still contend that the system, as it stands, isn't BROKEN, so a complete radical overhaul is not needed, and quite frankly, is NOT what the MAJORITY of the letters we've received (both concerning CAs in general, and later concerning PCAs specifically) WANT! I've posted the former letters previously, and am gathering the current letters in the same format now. I will gladly post a link to them as soon as we get enough to warrent the effort.

IT doesn't need a major change. We (the Club) just needs the ability to make some rather minor tweaks and the ability to, (You got it just right Jake...) fix some past and certainly future mistakes. This would be needed with or without a formula, so in reality, something along these lines is needed REGARDLESS of whether or not a formula is used for the initial classification.

Please write... we need your input...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX