PCA Responses... or LACK THEREOF!!!

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Knestis:
[i]This will go out this evening...i]

Kirk,

Well written as usual. I agree with most of this but some I don't think is possible to 'fix', but we have debated that before.

This is the kind of letter that the SCCA loves to get. It outlines the proposed problem(s) and the soultion(s). Do they all make sense and work in the big picture? No, but this is how you get the wheels of the CB turning.

AB

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

[Knestis]

Oops. Note to self: You don't live in Charlottesville anymore...

[Bill Miller]

I second what Andy said, nicely written Kirk! I honestly wish I had the time to sit down and craft something like that.

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

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Jake:
Wow - there's a surprise!

Since my concerns with "competition adjustments" haven't - for the most part - been addressed by "performance compensation adjustments," it was easy to write. It's essentially a revision of my previous input on the topic.

Regarding not changing my views, there isn't a damned thing wrong with being true to first principles that underly detail opinions about policy. In truth, a lot of folks spend a lot of energy arguing minute details of rules without clarifying for anyone - least of all themselves - what they think is fundamentally important.

Most of the whining about the IT rules has more to do with the processes applied than it does the actual result and we still diddle around the edges of change without addressing the fundamental issues.

K

[Jake]

Originally posted by Knestis:
there isn't a damned thing wrong with being true to

Didn't say there was. You've been consistant and you've taken the time to clarify your opinions. My hat's (or hemet's) off to ya.

[Jake]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I second what Andy said, nicely written Kirk! I honestly wish I had the time to sit down and craft something like that.

Most of us won't take the time to read something like that! Kirk, I still don't know why you're not on the CB - can't you do consulting for them thru phone conferences? Very well written, and I agree totally. I know you don't agree with me, but I still don't think that the PCA runs contrary to anything you are saying - the proposals are far from mutually exlusive. That said, I do like what you wrote better than what I read in fasttrack. Maybe it's just easier to swallow in smaller steps.

[oanglade]

Even though I already sent my letter, I kind of want to send another one that says "What he said!".

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
** Create an additional class between ITA and ITS...

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.

OK, first the disclaimer... There is NO hostile intent in this post, I just need a couple of questions considered and possibly answered...

1) If we are going to realign the classes, and people are willing to "accept that cars will not necessarily remain in their current classes", why is it necessary to establish another class when we have 2 of the 4 existing classes essentially stagnant from a growth (new cars being added) standpoint? Would it not behoove us to do a one-time shuffle to better utilize the classes we currently have? OR, is the answer to just leave ITB and ITC alone and only "mess" with the classes that traditionally get messed with?

OR, do we truely need the grainularity of 5 classes to classify any newer model cars effectively?

2) Are competitors in these classes willing to "accept" an influx of additional cars to "their" classes? It appears on the surface here that there are MANY that don't like to see their boat rocked for any number of reasons, not the least of which is fear that the competition might get tighter...

Comments? Opinions?

Thanks,



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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
It appears on the surface here that there are MANY that don't like to see their boat rocked for any number of reasons, not the least of which is fear that the competition might get tighter...

And it strikes me that these are the same people who rail against CA's by quoting the 'no guarantee of competivness' quote.

In the context of this question:

I think an additional class is the way to go. If you do a major re-shuffle with a 4 class structure, a LOT gets pushed down into B and C that would obsolete the current food chain. The goal IMHO is to level off the top and insert a pocket that has enough cars inside it's performance envelope to thrive.

AB

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

[Knestis]

Semi-random thoughts (while I'm supposed to be working)...

A fifth class between A and S would allow targeted changes where the complaints of lack of equity are most often heard - at the top of A and both ends of S. This would move changes forward with the minimum disruption of other classes.

ITC defines the floor and it is difficult to monkey with it. It could be pushed down by the inclusion of lower-performing cars but there really aren't many new ones coming on-stream since in general, performance of stock cars has increased over the years. It can't be raised above that defined by actual participation because folks would be left with nowhere to "move down" to.

With regard to Item 2, Darin, you have hit the nail on the head: Change would be resisted by those currently in positions of power (competitiveness) and people will howl like mad at the results - primarily if they perceive that they are arbitrary or subjectively reached.

The beauty of using qualities of cars to make classification and specification decisions (rather than expectations or perceptions of performance or potential), cars get grouped in predictable, repeatable, transparent ways. There is very little room to bitch about lost competitiveness.

K

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

I believe it's a case of needing the increased granularity (which is what I put in my letter to the C. If you just re-shuffle the existing 4 classes, you'd be achieving the same thing as adding a class. But only at the top. The way I envision a reshuffle (w/o any PCA's or anything else), the slow S cars go to A, and the slow A cars go to B. Maybe the slow B cars go to C. What you've done is essentially shifted the problem from the top of the category to the bottom.

As I've stated on numerous occasions, the entire performance band of cars currently on the market, has shifted from what it was 20ish years ago, when IT was born. Since there are really no new ITC and ITB cars, you're stuck w/ trying to drop everything into two classes, rather than four. You can't reshuffle things w/o dumping on the folks at the bottom, as they have nowhere to go.

I honestly don't think the A3 Golf would have been moved to ITB had there been a class between ITA and ITS. And it really doesn't matter if it's between A and S, or above S. What matters is that we need the additional granularity.

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

[Greg Amy]

I have to give Kirk yet another "amen, brother" on his long letter. Nail-on-head and all that. I support his ideals, plus:

- add a class between ITS and A for better granularity. No downside that I an think of. Sure "but it's another class" but So What? Same number of cars, maybe even MORE cars due to increased interest; what's the problem here?
- Just as we did in Showroom Stock until the mid-90's, all newly-classified cars go into ITS for their first year of eligibility. At the end of the year they can be reconsidered for classification elsewhere. This removes the possibility of accidentally classifying an overdog into a lower class plus it gives the competitor a year to develop the car and deomnstrate where it should go.

Greg

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Since there are really no new ITC and ITB cars, you're stuck w/ trying to drop everything into two classes, rather than four. You can't reshuffle things w/o dumping on the folks at the bottom, as they have nowhere to go.

Aren't we essentially "dooming" at least ITC to an eventual demise with this thinking? Surely there are cars in ITB that, with the addition of 100lbs or ??? would fit fine in ITC without disrupting the "competition" there. If that proves to be true, then wouldn't it also be true for ITB, ITA, etc...???

I see your logic here, and am not saying it's not valid, but I need to understand this whole "dumping on ITC/ITB" thing. If cars are dropped down and adjusted accordingly (ok, Kirk... we AREN'T discussing the details of that, so don't get all riled up! ), would we not be doing those classes some good by adding more cars?

Perhaps a good exercise here would be to map out a possible scenario of this option, so we can see what things would look like? What would IT look like if a shuffling were to take place that took the bottom-feeders from each class (except ITC, of course), and did some redistribution of cars? Then, I suppose we could discuss what would have to be done to make this work, and whether or not is was feasible and would solve the issues. There was a time, after all, when everything was just fine with ITA and ITS and the "granularity" was fine... Was the change in this sudden? Did it involve a couple of select classifications? Is it industry driven? Was it due to technology changing and people not fully understanding the ramifications and actual performance, driving cars to be inappropriately placed into ITS that perhaps truely belonged in ITA? ("fear of the 4-valve" is what I like to call that...) What happened?

It would be my view that these kinds of questions need to be appropriately explored before essentially dooming ITC to an eventual demise by not adjusting all the classes to meet the supply... Perhaps that's bound to happen anyhow? Great responses... Let's keep talking...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 16, 2003).]

[ITSRX7]

You can 'freshen' ITS with new incoming cars. You can 'freshen' ITA with slow cars from ITS. You can 'freshen' ITB with slow cars from ITA, You can 'freshen' ITC with slow cars from ITB...but the slow cars from ITC, which is already a "catch-all" of sorts, get buried alive.

By adding a new class between S and A, you can keep ITB and C in realative balance while addressing the huge amount of cars that are tweener S and A. I see this as a good thing for one main reason, it keeps a class or two avaiable for someone on a budget of $5000 per car. No $20K point of entry...

This DOES NOT however, solve the BIGGEST issue PCA's could address, a car in ITS that dominates. We NEED a provision to fix a mistake. PCA's do that AND, in a limited way, allow tweaks to the current structure to create classes that are more balanced and are better subscribed. They are NOT intended to ceate equality throughout IT.

AB

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
...but the slow cars from ITC, which is already a "catch-all" of sorts, get buried alive.

I agree with what you are saying, but in the interest of continuing this dialog... are there any specific examples of ITC cars that are "slow" and that would be put out to pasture should some newer cars enter the class??? I haven't sat down to really analyze it yet, but is it possible that there really WOULD not be many cars injected into ITC? If the problem really exists at the top, then as the problem rolled "down the hill", so to speak, isn't it possible that the "problem" would be dilluted so much by the point that it got to ITC that there really wouldn't be that many, if any, cars making that move, and that those that did would likely have been better served being in ITC in the first place?

I guess I'm trying to not worry so much about the "theory" of making changes, and starting to try to look more at the facts of making changes. A lot of these worries are in fact, theorical, or hypothetical situations that may not actually exist. Until we understand that, one way or the other, IT would be better served if we explored the possibilites before saying something simply can't be done...

I'll try to look into this over the next week. If anyone else wishes to do the same and compare notes, that would be great...


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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 16, 2003).]

[Knestis]

It occurs to me that part of the (potential) problem in ITC might be imaginary. Has anyone done any weeding of the ITCS C list? It doesn't make any sense trying to leave room for the Datsun 1200 if there aren't any out there anymore. (NOTE that I don't know whether there are, one way or another.)

K

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

I don't see how it's "dooming" ITC. You talk about adding 100# to ITB cars going to ITC. Isn't it a bit premature considering that PCA's haven't been implemented? I didn't see any weight adjustment on the A3 Golf 2.0 8v when it was moved to ITB.

If you can have 1.7, 1.8, and 2.0 8v VW's in the same class, why shouldn't you be able to have 1.8 and 2.0 16 VW's in the same class? I wouldn't be surprised if you see a letter or two requesting the 2.0 16v Golf/Jetta be moved from ITS to ITA. And w/ the movement of the A3 Golf to ITB, I think you'll see folks requesting the move of the 1.8 8v Rabbit GTI from ITB to ITC.

I do agree though, that a clearly defined, transparent classification process needs to be in place before either a new class is added or the existing classes are shuffled.

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

I don't see how it's "dooming" ITC. You talk about adding 100# to ITB cars going to ITC. Isn't it a bit premature considering that PCA's haven't been implemented? I didn't see any weight adjustment on the A3 Golf 2.0 8v when it was moved to ITB.

Nope... unless I'm reading the rules incorrectly, the SCCA doesn't NEED PCAs to do this type of move. Please note the following:

GCR 17.1.11. Change of Specifications -
"Specifications on cars classified for the first time, or reclassified, may be changed on thirty (30) day's notice during the first year of competition if the advanced estimates of performance are grossly inaccurate."

So, we (the club) has a year to make any adjustments to these reclassifications...

I do agree though, that a clearly defined, transparent classification process needs to be in place before either a new class is added or the existing classes are shuffled.

I often wonder if this is really the case, or if we just need to take the initiative and follow the rules we have more acutely? The ITCS rules state the following:

ITCS 17.1.4.B. INTENT -
"Entrants shall not be guaranteed the comptitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than reclassficiation, are not allowed."

This gives the avenue to perform the reclassification, and, when combined with the statement from the GCR above, the process by which to make the weight adjustments.

NOW, if there was just some practical, somewhat inclusive way to trigger the change and to calculate the need for weight, then the shuffling we've been talking about would require almost no adjustments to the current rules to accomplish...

Just some food for thought...

(Bill... thanks for the well thought out response... I like this type of dialog much better, as I'm sure you do to... )


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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 16, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 16, 2003).]

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

A couple of things w/ that. I don't think you get enough cars w/ enough development in that first year, unless the car is such a gross overdog that it probably shouldn't have been classified where it was in the first place. And as far as cars that get 'moved down' (I just can't see a car that gets 'moved up' dominating), other than the A3 Golf, I can't think of any other car that's been 'moved down' in the last 10 years. It'll be interesting to watch what happens w/ it next year.

The other point also ties in w/ how well cars do the first year, and the only option to correct problems being reclassification. How do you deal w/ a car like the E36, that emerges as an overdog after a couple of years of development, and is benefited by an advantageous rule change (open ECU rule)? The first year has passed, and there's no place to move the car up to, as it's already in the top class. BTW, anybody remember when the weight on the E36 325 was changed? Was it w/in the first year?

And, IIRC, when the Accord was moved from ITB to ITA, there was no weight change. Peter Keane can probably speak to this better than I can, but I thought that a request for a weight reduction was turned down because it would have constituted a competition adjustment.

BTW, how do you follow a rule "more acutely"

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited October 17, 2003).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
BTW, how do you follow a rule "more acutely"

acutely A*cute"ly, adv.
In an acute manner; sharply; keenly; with nice discrimination.

Keenly perceptive or discerning...
Reacting readily to stimuli or impressions

I suppose I meant it in the sense of actually being aware, in an acute manner, of what rules are already on the books and how they apply to the situation... Not so much "following a rule", as "applying the rules" or simply being aware that they exist...

We already have rules in place that would allow us to reorganize the classes. Cars that get reclassified don't have to wait for a "development period", since they most likely have been in the previous class for some time...

Again, just thoughts that I'm hoping some of you would think about and help develop to either an end, or possibly a beginning...

As for the rest of what you mention (E36, Acura from ITB to ITA, etc...) All before my time, so I can't comment on what was or wasn't done. I'll have to leave it to someone else to fill us in on those situations...

Not really so concerned about what has been done, so much as what will be done...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 17, 2003).]