Class restructure proposal

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

Please explain to me how Prod-style comp. adjustments make cars competitive.

Bill,
You're in Production... wouldn't you be better equiped to expain this to me??

Here's my stab at it... If driver A shows up to the Runoffs with car X, and dominates the show... CAs will be applied to ALL car X's in an attempt to make the other cars competitive with car X, or vise-versa, without much thought as to just how well driven, or how well prepped Car W, Y, and Z were... CAs are applied based solely on how well the car performs at the top level in a few select events...

PCAs take the opposite approach, really...

We've gone over this a hundred times... PCAs, whether you call them "Performance Compensation Adjustments", or you call them "Post-Classification Adjustments", they give the CRB the ability to adjust the weight to cars that prove, over time, to be classed at an advantage, (or potentially at a dis-advantage)...



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

[oanglade]

So, the '99 Miata gets classed in ITS (which I expected), but at a portly 2400 pounds. Am I to think that the powers that be feel that the car can be competitive at 2400 pounds?

This happens to be the same weight/stock hp ratio as the '94-'95 Miata, also in ITS. Hardly what anyone would call a competitive car in ITS.

So, what happened here? Was there any attempt to look at the car and give it a chance or was it simply a matter of making it fit with the other ITS Miata and be done with it?

There is no way (in my opinion) that it can legally make the power to compete with, say the RX-7 at that weight. It can easily lose 100 pounds and maybe it will be able to show. I'm ignoring the BMW because, as classified, the car is in ITR (a whole different class), not ITS.

Look at the cars moving from ITS to ITA. Say, the Nissan SER, for example. It was classed in ITS at 45 pounds more than the miata (same stock hp). Yeah, it is FWD and the Miata is RWD, but the Sentra gets moved to ITA because it has no chance at all to compete in ITS. Is the Miata THAT much better? Does RWD and 45 pounds make a difference between "move to ITA" and "have a chance in ITS"?
Look at the DOHC Neon! Classed in ITS at 2400 (same as the Miata), with 10 more stock hp. It had so little chance in ITS that it is being moved to ITA. Did it being FWD vs. the Miata being RWD at 10 less hp the difference between "move to ITA" and "have a chance in ITS"?


So, in short, can anyone maybe help me understand the process a little better? Is it that there are plans to slow down ITS as a whole?


By the way, that 1.8 V6 Mazda MX3 has no reason to be in ITS either, especially if cars like the SER and the Prelude are going to ITA.

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

[Geo]

Originally posted by oanglade:
Is it that there are plans to slow down ITS as a whole?

Without PCAs being approved, the only way to slow down ITS is to issue laser guided missles to the non-Bimmer drivers.


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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Bill,
You're in Production... wouldn't you be better equiped to expain this to me??

Here's my stab at it... If driver A shows up to the Runoffs with car X, and dominates the show... CAs will be applied to ALL car X's in an attempt to make the other cars competitive with car X, or vise-versa, without much thought as to just how well driven, or how well prepped Car W, Y, and Z were... CAs are applied based solely on how well the car performs at the top level in a few select events...

PCAs take the opposite approach, really...

We've gone over this a hundred times... PCAs, whether you call them "Performance Compensation Adjustments", or you call them "Post-Classification Adjustments", they give the CRB the ability to adjust the weight to cars that prove, over time, to be classed at an advantage, (or potentially at a dis-advantage)...

I don't know Darin, you spend as much (more?) time on the Prod site as you do here, you tell me. You've talked about negative comp. adj. in Prod, but not about the positive ones. That's not to say that I agree w/ your assesment of why/how comp. adj. are handed out in Prod. I've got thoughts on the whole thing, but don't have time to write it all down right now.



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