PCA Responses... or LACK THEREOF!!!

[Jake]

If you don't want ITS to become SPEC BMW.
If you don't want ITA to become SPEC Honda.
If you want to see a VARIETY of cars in IT.

PLEASE tell the comp board that you support their best collective effort for Competitive Adjustments in IT. If we don't bite now, we may never get another chance.

Contacting the Comp Board is fun! It's easy! It's only one click away:

[email protected]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Bill.... THIS misinformation...

Not trying to pick a fight... just trying to keep the facts straight...

Ok Darin, maybe you want to tell me how that's "mis-information".


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

[lateapex911]

Bill, you said, in answering a question about the affect of the rule on existing IT class overdogs, you said "nothing for at least for two years...".

But the rule clearly states, in the second paragraph, that they can make changes to existing cars ("rare occasions") immediately. So, as the proposed rule would go into eeffect on 1/2005, "at least two years" is the misinformation the has been referred to. I think you will see changes in under 15 months, at least the possibility of that exists.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Bill Miller]

Ok Jake, please show me where it says they will consider data prior to the rule implementation. Do you honestly think they'll implement this on 1/1/05 and wack cars like the E36 325 w/ weight at the same time? I don't (although, here's a case where I hope I'm wrong). Based on the way things have been done in the past, I would say it's more likely that they'd look at data for the '05 season, at the end of the season, for existing cars, before taking any kind of action with them.

Also, I stated that that's the way I read it. That was giving my opinion on it, not stating that, for a fact, nothing would be done for at least 2 years. Just like your opinion on seeing changes in < 15 months. Do you have a crystal ball?

Darin has gotten into the habit of using the wrong choice of words (see his comments about emperical data). He doesn't like my opinion, so he brands it as 'mis-information'.

In my opinion, this whole PCA thing is a load of crap. The drafters spent all kinds of time crafting rhetoric to avoid saying 'Competition Adjustments'. Also, notice that it's "the Club" that decides if there are inequties. They don't talk about any mechanism for dealing w/ member requests for change. And, if they're going to all this trouble, why is the 'no guarantee' language /edit/ not being addressed? It's my belief so that they can maintain an 'out' so as not to have to deal w/ member requests for adjustments.

Given a choice between the way things are today and this new PCA rubbish, I'll stick w/ what we have today. At least it's somewhat of a known quantity.


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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 13, 2003).]

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Ok Jake, please show me where it says they will consider data prior to the rule implementation. Do you honestly think they'll implement this on 1/1/05 and wack cars like the E36 325 w/ weight at the same time?

Where does it say they won't?? The fact is that the rule states that the window will open (if the whole deal goes down as written) 1.1.05

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Also, I stated that that's the way I read it. That was giving my opinion on it,.... Do you have a crystal ball? </font>

No that's why I used the word "think". Not to split hairs....

Given a choice between the way things are today and this new PCA rubbish, I'll stick w/ what we have today. At least it's somewhat of a known quantity.

That's interesting, because on the surface, you have left IT for the political mess that everyone wants to avoid: Prod style comp adjustments. Clearly, you see a distinction........

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 13, 2003).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Also, I stated that that's the way I read it. That was giving my opinion on it, not stating that, for a fact, nothing would be done for at least 2 years.

Bill,
Everyone is WELL aware that this is "just your opinion"... regardless... you opinion stated mis-information that needed correcting...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Darin has gotten into the habit of using the wrong choice of words (see his comments about emperical data). He doesn't like my opinion, so he brands it as 'mis-information'.</font>

Again... YOUR opinion is that this is a "wrong choice of words"... I still think it is a fine choice of words, if not taken to the n-th degree of every possible definition of the word "emperical", and is applied AS I QUOTED dictionary.com...

Oh, and as for the rest of your post... Your opinion doesn't mean a hill-of-beans on this issue unless you actually take the time to write the appropriate parties and give it, so why don't you quit trying to harrass me and start aiming some constructive feedback to the compboard? Think of it as a round-about way of still harrassing me, just through an alternate channel...


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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 13, 2003).]

[Bill Miller]

Ok Darin, how is my opinion that there won't be anything done for at least two years mis-information and Jakes opinion that you'll see changes in < 15 months not? Both are opinions.

I will say one thing though, you're one hell of an authority for someone that's been on the ITAC for only a few months. And who are you to determine if and when my opinion is worth something? And as far as your opinion about your choice of words, that's all well and good, but you still have not been able to show how it meets even one of the criteria that Kirk cited. Your arrogance is only exceeded by your lack of objectivity.

Jake,

You're correct, you did indicate that it was your opinion. I was wrong to say that you were stating it as fact.

And yes, I do see a distinction between Prod style comp. adjustments (not what I would like to see for IT, either) and this PCA BS. Why the need for all the fancy rhetoric and euphamism if not to create loopholes and a degree of vagueness so that no one can get pinned down?

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

[ddewhurst]

****Darin, thanks for the info. Now lets add some balls to the newly proposed written rule.
If the first paragraph is aimed at only newly classed cars state that in the first paragraph.

If the second paragraph is for existing classed cars & or newly classed cars state that in the second paragraph.***

Darin & or Andy, is this to much to ask for. Ya know a written rule that we ALL will understand.

Racing is great, to bad the rules are always a GAME. From the few people who have posted on this PCA issue rule it is clear that the rule is not understandable. & you people on the ITAC are given the opportunity to infuse some change. If you people will not respond & communicate about this PCA rule why should we think that letters to the Comp Board will receive any attention. Opps if you do that you will never be considered for the Comp Board.

It's a sad rule
David




[This message has been edited by ddewhurst (edited October 13, 2003).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I will say one thing though, you're one hell of an authority for someone that's been on the ITAC for only a few months.

NOW we're getting to the root of the matter, eh Bill... Is there an "herb" behind some of this contempt Bill?? Sure sounds familiar... I suppose next you'll say something rediculous like "he's only out for his own interests and is working solely for himself..." Is that what you think?

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And who are you to determine if and when my opinion is worth something? </font>

OK, you are right... let me clarify for you (I'm sure everyone else actually got what I was saying...)

<SUGAR-COATING MODE>
Your "opinion" needs to be directed at the proper people in the proper manner if you want it to be officially considered... </SUGAR-COATING MODE>

There... even you can understand that...

As for Kirk's question... He listed four things that were above and beyond the depth of definition that I had considered when using the word... I conceeded that to him and have let it go... If you'd like to continue to argue it with him... feel free, because I believe he and I are settled on the matter...

Finally, my time on the ITAC has been over 10 months now... How long should I sit and observe before I start working on the issues that people expect me to work on??? Further, what does my time on the ITAC have to do with my knowledge of racing? I've been doing this since I was 18, which is going on about 18 years now... How much longer do I have to go before I'm "good enough" for the position???


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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 13, 2003).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
you people on the ITAC are given the opportunity to infuse some change. If you people will not respond & communicate about this PCA rule

Thus far, I believe we've been "responding and communicating" a LOT, so I'm not sure what more you want from us...

I feel that the official position I must take on the PCA proposal is to attempt to clarify as best I can the intent and wording as it has been presented. I've done that to the best of my ability, and shall continue to do so. It's going to be up to the membership to decide ultimately whether or not PCAs are a workable solution, which is why I have left my personal opinion out of the conversation. (Yes, despite popular believe, it's VERY easy for me to remain objective on these matters, and separate my "desires" from my official responsibilities...)

It's up to you all to read what has been presented and decide on a course of action. If you have questions, by all means, ask them and we will try to answer, based on our involvement in the creation. We are not lawyers, however, and not nearly as good at twisting and manipulating wording as most of you, so keep that in mind...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 13, 2003).]

[ITSRX7]

I am havng a tough time handling this board. If anyone has any specific questions they wouldlike answered about intent or whatnot, please feel free to e:mail me off-line. It's just plain impossible to get the right message across when 1000 people are 'reading' it a diferent way.

[email protected]
or
[email protected]

I am just trying to stay away from the pissing contests that seem to happen every week. We are really trying to do what is best for the IT community.

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 13, 2003).]

[Quickshoe]

Thanks for your efforts Andy, while we haven't always seen eye to eye. At least we behaved somewhat appropriate.

The personal attacks have really got tiresome. I've started to scan over certain members' posts. And being guilty of toting a little gas to the fire from time to time, it takes a lot for me to grow tired of the drama.

--Daryl DeArman

[Joe Craven]

OK guys, I sent in my opinion.

Thanks and I do appreciate the SCCA looking into this quagmire.

#37 ITB - having lots of fun whether I win or lose.

[ddewhurst]

What the hell is wrong with some OPEN communication within the Secret Car Club of America. If one of you ITCA members would attempt to answer my question you may answer other peoples question at the same time.

Question A. ***If the first paragraph is aimed at only newly classed cars state that in the first paragraph.***

Question B. ***If the second paragraph is for existing classed cars & or newly classed cars state that in the second paragraph.***

If my suggestion makes no sence please tell me why I am wrong. Or what the harm is in adding a couple words to add clarity to the rule.

If you ITAC guys have been told to keep your mouths shut on the boards then you ought to not type about ITAC issues.

David Dewhurst
SCCA member # 250772

[Geo]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
What the hell is wrong with some OPEN communication within the Secret Car Club of America.

What the hell do you think you've been getting?

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
If one of you ITCA members would attempt to answer my question you may answer other peoples question at the same time.

Well David, what is your question? I only see a suggestion.

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Question A. ***If the first paragraph is aimed at only newly classed cars state that in the first paragraph.***

This is not a question.

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Question B. ***If the second paragraph is for existing classed cars & or newly classed cars state that in the second paragraph.***

Neither is this.

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
If my suggestion makes no sence please tell me why I am wrong. Or what the harm is in adding a couple words to add clarity to the rule.

Hey, write to the CB. We've put a proposal in front of the CB. They put it in front of the members (that's you) for comment. So write them.

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
If you ITAC guys have been told to keep your mouths shut on the boards then you ought to not type about ITAC issues.

Where the hell did you get this?

I think Andy, Darin, and I have been pretty damned open here - probably too open. But we get blasted anyway. And people still don't write the CB. <shrug>


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
But we get blasted anyway.

I can deal with getting "blasted"... What really bothers me is that when the discussion comes to that, it runs people off and has them avoiding getting involved.

To any part of that that I've been a party, I appologize and will try to avoid that in the future.

It's pointless for us to comment on every single suggestion here, because all it does is start these pissing matches, and I, as others here have stated, don't think that's useful. If you want to write your thoughts down and send them in, then the ITAC can pool them together and see what patterns emerge. We can break them down and try to decipher what it is the majority of the membership wants.

Because we don't outright comment, does not mean that they aren't respectable ideas, or legitimate questions... Sometimes, there just isn't an answer at the time, or it wasn't a question in the first place, or we are busy at work and didn't see the post in the first place... Should we really be expected to respond to every suggestion given here? Actually, now that I think about it... we tend to! The correct response would have to be "that's an interesting idea/thought/whatever... you should write that to the Compboard for consideration..."...

Sure, that's the "company" answer, but it's also the one that gets things on the agendas of the CB and ITAC...

Finally, many times, I feel it's better to NOT respond, and to let you guys/gals take these topics where you feel they should go... We are watching, usually, and it's better to see where you all decide to take a topic without anyone thinking that an "official interpretation" has been given... Not trying to be "arrogant", but that's just what tends to happen, regardless of the true intent...


OK, O'll make an attempt to, as simply as possible, answer David's questions/comments:

The first paragraph clearly states: "During the initial vehicle classification process..." That seems pretty clear to me, and I would interpret that on an initial reading as meaning that this applies to an initial classfication... I'm not sure how it could be made any clearer than that...

The second paragraph states: "On rare occasion-and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle-the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle's minimum allowable weight..." etc. etc...

This, again, seems pretty clear that it is referring to "a particular make/model/year of a vehicle"... which says that any vehicle is fair game... "a" doesn't usually mean "the one previously discussed", or the "one we were just talking about"... It simply means "a" vehicle... Does that not refer to "ANY" vehicle in the field??? In what way could that be clearer???

If there is a specific suggestion as to the wording that would make this clearer, you know the avenue that you must take to get it heard by all parties. That's the best I can answer the question, because to me it's very clear what it says. By all means, however, do what you need to do to make sure YOU feel clear about what it says as well...

Hope this helped some...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 14, 2003).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Actually, now that I think about it... we tend to! The correct response would have to be "that's an interesting idea/thought/whatever... you should write that to the Compboard for consideration..."...

Sure, that's the "company" answer, but it's also the one that gets things on the agendas of the CB and ITAC...

Agreed.


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

[ddewhurst]

***OK Guys and Gals... ONLY 16 letters so far???***

This says a lot about your new proposed PCA.

[Knestis]

This will go out this evening, after I have had one more chance to proof it...

Pursuant to the recent request for member input regarding the implementation of Performance Compensation Adjustments (PCAs) in the Improved Touring category, I respectfully submit the following points for your consideration:

1. Clause 17.1.4.B is not consistent with the policy operationalized by the PCA proposal and, before the proposed changes are considered, should be revised such that stated intent and policy align. While it is inappropriate to guarantee that every car will be a potential winner, it should be clearly stated that it is a goal to achieve equity within each IT class, if that is indeed the case. If this is not a desired outcome of the proposed rule change, it must be clearly spelled out what the goals are.

2. Within this clause, it must be clearly stated that no change to the ITCS should be construed as intending to provide equal opportunity for every entrant to be competitive. The fundamental purpose of racing is to sort the clever, talented racers from the rest of us—irrespective of the type of car that we drive. The distinction between “guarantee of competitiveness” and “effort to achieve equity” is critical.

3. The regional status and popularity of the IT category result in wide disparities in on-track performance within and among makes/models of cars—influenced not only by the inherent characteristics of any given make/model of listed car but also by (a) financial wherewithal, ( time commitment, © construction skill, (d) engineering understanding, (e) driving talent, (f) differences in race courses, (g) legality, (h) disqualifications and DNFs, and even (i) vagaries of the weather. A strong argument can be made that the fundamental design of a particular stock car accounts for a very small portion of the variance among elapsed race or lap times in any IT class at any given event, relative to all of these other influences. Further, no statistical examination of results data has been undertaken that suggests that it IS the case that make/model of car is the most powerful predictor of race-condition competitiveness.

4. For this reason—and while I understand that it runs counter to common practice in Club Racing and the unstated assumptions behind the PCA proposal—I therefore urge that relative finishing places and/or lap times NOT be a primary data source when considering any adjustments to “compensate” for the “performance” of IT cars.

5. The practice of traditional, results-based “competition adjustments” potentially results in a number of consequences detrimental to the broad interests of the Club Racing program—even as they further those of individual racers—including (a) perceptions of decision-maker bias; ( inappropriate efforts to lobby decisions; © de facto punishment of entrants of well-prepared, well-driven cars; (d) unfortunate burdens placed on less well funded, less skilled drivers of those same models of car; and (e) the need for any new car to go through the entire application, classification process before its potential longer-term usefulness can be assessed by interested entrants.

6. The single greatest shortcoming of the PCA proposal is that it does not specify what “triggers” will or will not be allowed to catalyze the process described in the last paragraph of the proposed 17.1.4.C. This leaves “Performance Compensation Adjustments” operationally identical to “Competition Adjustments,” at least in terms of the potential downside consequences that might result from their application (as described in 5. above). In fact, it aggravates the situation by imposing a multi-year probationary period on newly classified cars, making “recall” efforts enormously attractive to entrants interested in furthering their own competitive interests during this period.

7. It should be accepted that no system is going to be perfect, so a lack of perfection should not be invoked as an indictment of any proposed classification/specification system.

8. Further, it is specious to invoke the implicit threat that, “If we don’t change the IT classification process now, it will never be considered again.” If this is TRULY the situation, I would respectfully suggest that the problems in Club rules-making processes run much deeper than the challenges presented in specifying minimum weights in IT.

8. Perhaps most critically, predictability and repeatability are desirable qualities—perhaps even to the degree that they may exclude equity. It seems that many of the current inequities in IT classification and specification are the result of different well-intentioned decision makers applying various ad hoc decision making practices over time. The PCA proposal does nothing to ameliorate this problem in that acceptable considerations for changes to existing cars’ specifications are vaguely stated and open to individual interpretation.

9. Given all of these considerations, I recommend the following steps as a remedy to the current make/model equity issues in the IT category:

** Create an additional class between ITA and ITS – this will provide greater latitude in classification and resolve a number of issues as outlined in my proposal, submitted previously. It will address challenges at both ends of the ITS spectrum and at the top of ITA—three places where many commonly cited examples of inequity current exist.

** Establish appropriate minimum and maximum practical weights for the various makes/models of IT car, based on their stock curb weight and legal IT modifications. Do not make it necessary to add really large amounts of ballast or attempt to reach unrealistically low race weights, by reclassifying cars instead. Accept that cars will not necessarily remain in their current classes but establish parameters for each class, such that movements are kept to a minimum.

** Establish a formula for classifying and specifying cars based on their physical attributes. The simplest parameters for consideration are IT-spec engine power/torque (as inputs) and race weight (as an output). While other input variables may be considered (frontal area, Cd, brake swept area, suspension design, etc.), diminishing returns set in quickly so the value of a more complex formula is questionable. Do not allow individual make/model specification allowances to adjust performance.

** IT-spec engine output could be estimated based on SAE net quoted stock figures or a formula that considers displacement, engine type and technology (“old” vs. “new”), valve train design, intake valve area, or other design attributes. Although known power outputs for IT-spec race engines should be considered when developing the formula, final classifications should be based on engine attributes rather than specific makes/models (e.g., 16v DOHC vs. Toyota Corolla GT-S). It is less important precisely what the formula is, than it is that the formula be repeatable and transparent.

** Apply the new formula to a one-time realignment of the IT classes. Should it be necessary to adjust in the future, changes should be made to the formula, rather than to individual models (e.g., carbureted cars lose .1 in the IT-spec engine power multiplier across the board, rather than 240Z gets a 50# weight break). This will attenuate the effect of proposed changes, decrease the potential return (and therefore motivation) for requesting changes, and lessen the number of change requests.

** It bears restating that with ANY system, there are going to be some cars that are inherently better than others. At least with the process described above, differences are small relative to other factors influencing individual driver/car competitiveness, the playing field starts out reasonably level, the process is transparent, and it is possible to assess the value of a given car before it is classified. The application process would also be streamlined, lowering the workload on club personnel and board members, and speeding turnaround.

Respectfully submitted,

Kirk Knestis
Charlottesville, VA
103210

[email protected]
336-378-0127



[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 14, 2003).]

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
***OK Guys and Gals... ONLY 16 letters so far???***

This says a lot about your new proposed PCA.

Like I wrote before, when the CB puts a proposal up for member comment, it's fair to assume that it's an idea that they think is strong and would like to implement. When you consider that 99.9% of the membership have seen the proposal, understand it's an idea that the CB is considering and DON'T write in, then at the very least I would consider that a nuetral response.

Most don't feel they have to write in if they agree because they think they are in the majority. 16 responses to me tells a WHOLE different story - the 'average' regional racer isn't against the idea.

AB

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