Nov. FasTrack is out

[zracre]

my point is that the teg has been there for years...

[C. Ludwig]

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 11 2005, 12:57 PM
What exactly is the proposal? I generally like to know what I am expressing support for before contacting my local politician oops! BOD member supporting or against something.

[snapback]62298[/snapback]

What he said.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 11 2005, 05:23 PM
my point is that the teg has been there for years...

[snapback]62300[/snapback]

Time moves faster than I do sometimes but I don't think that the 2nd-gen Integra has been listed for very long. 2005 might be the third year?

K

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 11 2005, 01:23 PM
my point is that the teg has been there for years...

[snapback]62300[/snapback]

Evan,

I'm not sure how long the 2nd generation Integra has been around, but even if it's only 3 years, what's been around even less than that, is a concerted effort to restore some balance to IT. I would think, that as a former Rabbit GTI owner, you would welcome an objective process, and an active effort to narrow the performance envelopes of the 4 classes. If what's in place today, had been around even 5 years ago, you, I, and many, many others, wouldn't have gotten so frusted w/ the Rabbit GTI (and there are many other cars that were in the same boat).

Bottom line is, people should be able to run the car they want to run, and not feel that they have to run Car X, if they want a chance at being competitive. To me at least, that's where it looks like the ITAC is trying to get us. Heck, if they drop 100 - 150 # off the Rabbit GTI, I might just have to build another one! Lord knows, I've still got plenty of spares.

[Doc Bro]

Can you say e36 BMW ....all over again? Do I hear 500....550?

Rob

[zracre]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 11 2005, 01:53 PM
Time moves faster than I do sometimes but I don't think that the 2nd-gen Integra has been listed for very long. 2005 might be the third year?

K

[snapback]62304[/snapback]

I believe I saw one of the first ones in 1998 or 99 built by Mr Wilding...but I think it hit in 1996 or 1997...not sure but I always admired the cars. I built it because I like it...im happy its not a dog. I just acquired a really cheap 1992 Sentra XE and will probably make that an ITB car because I like them too. I just dont like the idea of having a car classed a certain way for years, build one, then have it re-classed or adjusted in a way that costs lots of money to try and make it at least equal to other well prepped cars out there. my point is that if a car comes to a class and destroys everyone in the first year or 2, then maybe something should be done obviously, but dont penalize a group of people for having spent the time and money. I think if a car comes to the class and is uncompetitive, like the MR2, it should be adjusted or moved down (and adjusted) to keep interest without losing people. There are so many cars in IT keeping parity would be almost impossible without someone building control cars and having controlled tests on all of them. I loved the GTI but when the newer cars came and it seemed to get out gunned, I tried to see what could be done, found nothing then just moved on. If other cars come to ITA and the teg is out gunned, then I will probably move on again...and not be bitter.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 11 2005, 04:57 PM
What exactly is the proposal? I generally like to know what I am expressing support for before contacting my local politician oops! BOD member supporting or against something.

[snapback]62298[/snapback]

Very good point... Unfortunately, I can't post the exact details of it as of yet, because the CRB is still reviewing it (or has yet to review it... We'll find out on the 24th)... We have to respect the chain of "authority" here and let the process work, so the CRB should be the ones to present this idea to the BoD in exacting detail...

If you've been paying attention, then perhaps a better request would be to ask your local BoD to support the "DIRECTION" the ITAC is trying to go... Which essentially boils down to everything those on the ITAC that post here have been trying to say... Bring the top and bottom toward the middle with a set of "one-time", sensible adjustments to get all the specs in-line with the classification process, which is also defined in all it's detail in the proposal.

The proposal to the CRB includes the following:

1) A DETAILED description of the ITACs process for recommending classification specs, including descriptions of each steps and the thinking/analysis that needs to go into each.

2) An explanation of the changes in specs being proposed that we feel the membership should understand and that should give a clear explanation of WHY this is being recommended... (I cringe at the use of the word "clear" here, but that's the intent...)

3) A list of cars, class-by-class, that the ITAC is recommending for adjustments.

4) Additional details and explanation supporting the adjustments to some specific cars.

I'm sorry I cannot divulge actual details, but it would be inappropriate to do so. What I can tell you is that EVERY recommended adjustment makes "sense", but of course, that may depend on which side of the fence you choose to sit on... I am absolutely certain, however, that EVERY recommendation can be clearly explained! By that I mean that, unlike the mysteries of classifications in the past, If you were to ask us WHY is this car spec'd as it is... we can give you a VERY specific answer and we can discuss it from there...

Our vision is to reduce the error... Given the information we have available, and the granularity at which we must work, I think we are succeding in doing that... Now we just need to fix some of the specs from the past to get them in line and we can move forward from there... It's comforting knowing, as well, that we do have the option of correcting the corrections with PCAs in the future, should that prove necessary... I don't think this will have to happen, not much anyhow, but the mechanism is there should we need it...

The key is going to be to convince the CRB and maybe the BoD that we can indeed do a large "competition adjustment" like this, and NOT have it become precedent that will lead down the road to a "Production" style CA pattern... Number 2 in my list above attempts to put language together that can be printed in Fastrack that should make it clear that this is NOT what is going to happen...

Now, for some of you to support this, it's going to take a big effort to think of IT as a whole, and not just your little piece of it, because there are some cars on the list that need to get weight added... However, the end result should be better competition, and a choice of chassis to race that goes beyond the "car of the month" mentality... We think, if we get this accomplished, that the cars that run up front will be those that are prepared to 10/10ths... Not those that say "XXXX" on the marque...

So, if you can support this thinking, and you trust us and believe that the ITAC has the best interests of IT as a whole in mind, then please let your BoD members, and even any CRB members who you may know, that you support this direction...

If not, then let them know that as well... After all, we're doing all this for you... If it's not what you want, we should know that... (would have been nice to know that BEFORE we went to the last two years worth of work... )

Hope this helps...

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 03:35 PM
Hope this helps...

[snapback]62316[/snapback]

It does. I have been paying attention but had missed it presented as a comprehensive whole anywhere, if it was. Certainly gives me a single point of reference for any communication of support or otherwise, where I actually have an inkling of what it is I would be commenting on instead of "I support whatever it is the ITAC is trying to do!"

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by turboICE@Oct 11 2005, 07:42 PM
It does. I have been paying attention but had missed it presented as a comprehensive whole anywhere, if it was.

[snapback]62320[/snapback]

You didn't miss it... This is the first time I can recall me putting this whole deal in one place, but we've given bits and pieces and expained our thinking many times... Hard to follow it all, I know... so I felt the need to lay it out in one post...

Again, in hopes that this helps everyone understand our message and intent...

[R2 Racing]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 11 2005, 09:05 AM
Not quite sure what you're saying, but it would seem that the Integra is light. Only 5# extra for 5 hp extra. If you use the the VW 1.8 16v and 2.0 16v numbers, the Acura should probably be closer to 2550#.

[snapback]62277[/snapback]

My point was that the GTI seems to be classed right around where the Integra is. Let me spell this out again and include the torque numbers too:
ITA '92 GTI = 2.0L, 4 cylinder, 16V, 135hp stock, 133lb-ft stock, with a 2475lb race weight.
ITA '92 Integra = 1.8L, 4 cylinder, 16V, 140hp stock, 126lb-ft stock, with a 2480lb race weight.

You guys seriously think that those figures make the Acura look heads and shoulders above the GTI? Seriously? Well, I certainly don't. I don't know when being +5hp, -7lb-ft, and -.2L would make the Integra deserve an additonal 75lbs of weight over the VW (as suggested). If it's a case of "well, the Honda's perform greater then the sum of their parts" than you guys sound just like the SCCA did about two years ago.

Get at least 3 or 4 years of good, solid development into one of those GTI's and I'd be willing to bet it would be right up there in ITA....right where I fully expect the Miata, SE-R, Civic Si, and Neon to join the CRX's and Integra's here shortly. All it takes is people to prepare one to the level of the best CRX's and Integra's out there. Contrary to popular belief, they don't just make themselves fast like magic. I have two years of pretty much full time development on my Integra and I'm by no means dominating every ITA field I enter. I've had success, yes, but I'm also still busting my ass in order to try and not get it handed to me every time I go out there. It's called competition, try breeding it.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by R2 Racing@Oct 11 2005, 08:07 PM
I don't know when being +5hp, -7lb-ft, and -.2L would make the Integra deserve an additonal 75lbs of weight over the VW (as suggested).

[snapback]62324[/snapback]

You need to get away from focusing on STOCK figures, and start weighing the potential in IT prep...

If they both have the potential for a 30% improvement, then that 5hp difference becomes a 6.5hp difference, and yes, that is worth about 100lbs...

[Bob Burns]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 11 2005, 02:35 PM
Unfortunately, I can't post the exact details of it as of yet, because the CRB is still reviewing it (or has yet to review it... We'll find out on the 24th)...

The BoD is generally reluctant to approve a significant change to our member-oriented competition programs without time for member input. Consequently, the timing of this may become critical.

Assuming the CRB approves the ITAC's proposal on the 24th, it might make the December Fastrack which should be out around the first week of November. The BoD meets the first weekend of December. That means the time for member input will be relatively short.

Bottom line, if you have an opinion on the ITAC's proposal, once it is printed, do not delay in communicating your opinion to your director.

Bob...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bob Burns@Oct 11 2005, 08:45 PM
The BoD is generally reluctant to approve a significant change to our member-oriented competition programs without time for member input. Consequently, the timing of this may become critical.

[snapback]62328[/snapback]

This might be an issue, but it's one we'll have to deal with...

If this were simply specification changes, I'd question why the BoD would be involved at all, since the CRB does this type of adjustment all the time without taking it to the BoD. However, there are some reclassifications suggested, and this does affect a lot of specs, so it is important that the BoD at least be aware of what is being suggested, so they can clearly see, and hopefully agree with, the direction the ITAC has been proposing we go...

I feel confident that this proposal will show the CRB and BoD that there is indeed a plan for IT... I don't remember exactly what the buzz word was for that a couple of years ago when it was promised that all competition programs would come up with one, but WE have one down in writing... Actually, we've been executing it for the past couple of seasons, and this is the final piece... So, in a big way, the approval of all of our recommendations over the past couple of seasons means that the CRB and BoD already approve of this plan! Now we just need to get the existing cars in line...

I sincerely hope that we at least get a chance to have it considered... That would be disappointing... The IT community deserves for this to happen...

Thanks for speaking up Bob and letting us know what the deal is... I'll make sure to do everything I can to get this through the proper channels...

[Bill Miller]

Bob,

Thanks for the input, it's sure nice to see decision-makers providing input. And I'll echo your comments, if this is going to happen for the '06 season, it's going to happen fast. If you've got thoughts on it, let the people that make the decsions, know what they are PDQ.

Darin,

Thanks for putting that all together. What you guys are doing, is pretty much what I've supported, and lobbyed for, from the very start. Way to go!

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 11 2005, 03:24 PM
........ I just dont like the idea of having a car classed a certain way for years, build one, then have it re-classed or adjusted in a way that costs lots of money to try and make it at least equal to other well prepped cars out there.

Wait.......stop.....the logic is missing here. First, big picture, the idea isn't to take 10/10ths winning cars and make them second string. No, the idea is to take 10/10ths cars that have known qualities and physical properties that make them potential overdogs, and make them contenders with other 10/10ths efforts. If the development has been done on the car, then any additional weight will result in some adjustments, but not a whole house redevelopment effort. Again, the idea isn't to penalize, but create a more level playing field.

my point is that if a car comes to a class and destroys everyone in the first year or 2, then maybe something should be done obviously,

Well, not really....if a car's physical properties are such that it has the potential to kill the class, then yes, adjustments are in order. Actual race results must be examined with extreme care, as they can be very misleading.

but dont penalize a group of people for having spent the time and money.

Again, the idea isn't to penalize...but look at it from the other angle. If a car gets classed, and is later seen to have more potential then originally realized, the entire class suffers. ITA has a number of such cars. They have resulted both from rules changes, such as the ECU relaxation rule, and due to the understandable over acheiving nature of certain models. Dozens of cars have been marginalized due to classing issues. Should the entire class suffer? The ENTIRE class has already spent money, and put forth years of effort, which goes down the tubes when a car comes online and is an overacheiver. Is it fairer to "penalize" the single or the few models that are the overacheivers, or the entire remaining class?

I think if a car comes to the class and is uncompetitive, like the MR2, it should be adjusted or moved down (and adjusted) to keep interest without losing people. .

[snapback]62315[/snapback]

The problem with adjusting all the underdogs is of course, the sheer numbers of them, but there are additional issues. The RX-7 and the MR2 are good examples. IF it was decided that moving the RX-7 to ITB was a good idea, it would have to move down at it's current weight, as any additional weight adjustment would creat a car in violation of the rollcage requirements. (In this case, cars built to the limit of the tubing thickness rules {.095 tubes} will need recaging as the cutoff is 2200 lbs.) Also, many cars just can't lose any more weight..they are running at or above their minimum weight with all the excess that can be removed legally gone.

So, again, the idea is to bring the bottom up, and the top down, while leaving the vast middle alone. hopefully that yields the fewest changes, and creates less overlaps to the classes above and below.

This entire concept has been in process for years, back when Kirk was promoting his IT2 concept, which itself was a reaction to the issues IT was suffering at the time. The first step, and it was a long and tough road to get there, was the creation of the PCA philosophy, and the required rewriting of the basic premise, (and the rulebook), of IT. Those long termers on this board will remember some heated discussions about it.

Even then the discussions ran tangentally into "Lets just add a class between A and S", to "Lets just send all the carbed cars to vintage", but it seemed to me, at least, that the problems in IT could be traced to a relatively small percentage of individual models. The problem was, how to fix it?

With the PCA foundation created and in the book, the mechanism was in place. The second step was to create and fine tune the "process" used to define the classes. The third step was the application of the process in new car classing. The final major step is the adjustment of the existing cars to create a more level landscape, where more cars have a shot, when well prepped and well driven, at the front spot.

I think this proposal extremely important, and it's the culmination of years of discussion, work and thought, and is the second best thing to hit IT since IT's inception. (PCA is the best, without it, nothing is possible) It has numerous benefits, the most obvious being the leveling of the playing field, but others such as the, (albeit partial) removal of the motive and tempation to cheat, and the restoration of values for marginalized cars.

Of course, it's not nirvana, but in the big picture, it's a great move. The wheels of the SCCA turn slowly....find your local BoD person, or write the CRB and support it if you think it deserves to move forward.

[zracre]

Jake, thanks that was a well laid out answer to my concerns...however, how is an overdog singled out? When the RX7 came to ITS it basically took over...was that an overdog? not anymore as the BMW took over... If there are 5 crx's, 1 miata, 1 325e, 1 rx3, 1 integra and a few saturns running in a region and the crx's are dominant, how do we judge if the crx's are overdogs? We have a 325e that holds the track record here in daytona...other regions seem to have very few competitive 325e's. Some regions have mostly Integras running...How do we put the driver variable in there too? the ITB Accord got the short end of the stick after randy pobst took one to the ARRC and dominated...is that car an overdog?Dont get me wrong, I think the adjustment process is a good thing even if it affects me (I have been winning alot and have noticed that the Integra is a brilliant platform, but my ass has been handed to me on more than one occasion) but track variables and driver variables play a big role too. If there is a magic formula to make all cars equal, then im all for it but I would like to see how it really works without actually taking cars and testing them in controlled situations.
I race because I enjoy competition and the more the merrier. I just dont want to see a situation where a certain car needs a 20-30k investment to win against an 8/10ths effort car as this is IT...I think there will always be some cars that are more popular than others and some more competitive some cheaper to run some more expensive. I wish more people would list track records and cars achieving them just for fun and reference sake.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 12 2005, 02:20 AM
the ITB Accord got the short end of the stick after randy pobst took one to the ARRC and dominated...is that car an overdog?Dont get me wrong, I think the adjustment process is a good thing even if it affects me (I have been winning alot and have noticed that the Integra is a brilliant platform, but my ass has been handed to me on more than one occasion) but track variables and driver variables play a big role too. If there is a magic formula to make all cars equal, then im all for it but I would like to see how it really works without actually taking cars and testing them in controlled situations.

[snapback]62352[/snapback]

OK, I don't have time this evening to address this entire post, but I need to re-emphasise one thing... YOU CAN NOT keep focussing on RESULTS! THEY DO NOT DEFINE AN "OVERDOG"! Not in the ITAC's world, anyhow...

Results can give indications, clues, supporting evidence, etc... but a simple review of the classification specs will SHOW YOU THE OVERDOGs... The cars that win, SHOULD WIN, based on an analyisis of the spec lines...

THAT is what we are working toward changing... If you get the specs in line, then you leave it up to the competitors to define who wins and who doesn't... Personally, I want to see a utopia where the guy who prepares his car to 10/10ths is the one who wins... or at least competes... The situation you describe where you get beat by an 8/10ths car... That should only happen in a situation where the guy/gal can outdrive you or where your car is only 7/10ths...

So, the bottom line is that this is NOT an exercise in "penalizing" the "overdogs"... or helping those who are underprepared get a bone... This is about getting ALL OF THE CARS in the ITCS under the same classification structure, and then leaving it to the racers to decide who comes out on top...

Will this be perfect, Hell no... But I have every confidence that the shortcomings will be few, and even more confidence that something can be done about it should our information and our estimations prove to be incorrect... I also have every confidence that we'll be closer than IT has ever been before to having a level playing field, and it is the ITAC's belief that THIS is something the majority of IT participants want to see happen...

[Matt Rowe]

First, the general proposal as laid out looks like exactly what IT needs to level the playing field and increase the potential number of competitive makes and models. Bravo! And I will be speaking to my BOD rep next time I see him.

Secondly, although a little more detail on the process for classifying would be nice, I think you have provided enough detail for the group at large. Certainly the last thing I would want to see is the detailed list of cars and the changes to be created as that will only serve to confuse the issue as everyone attempts to argue why they don't deserve a penalty or the other guy does. I really hope that portion of the proposal is kept out of our hands until the process is approved.

Finally, the one question I have about reclassification is currently dropping a car from ITA to ITB requires a significant cost due to the purchase of a complete new set of wheels. Is there any plans to address this since it seems like there is the potential for a several car reclassifications?

Thanks to the ITAC for the hard work.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Oct 11 2005, 11:49 PM
First, the general proposal as laid out looks like exactly what IT needs to level the playing field and increase the potential number of competitive makes and models. Bravo! And I will be speaking to my BOD rep next time I see him.

Secondly, although a little more detail on the process for classifying would be nice, I think you have provided enough detail for the group at large. Certainly the last thing I would want to see is the detailed list of cars and the changes to be created as that will only serve to confuse the issue as everyone attempts to argue why they don't deserve a penalty or the other guy does. I really hope that portion of the proposal is kept out of our hands until the process is approved.

wise words.....

Finally, the one question I have about reclassification is currently dropping a car from ITA to ITB requires a significant cost due to the purchase of a complete new set of wheels. Is there any plans to address this since it seems like there is the potential for a several car reclassifications?

Thanks to the ITAC for the hard work.

[snapback]62367[/snapback]

Yes, the drop from A to B is fraught with the wheel issue. It has been discssed here before. I mentioned it as a hurdle, but some said it was no biggie, you just sell what you have and find more. In the end it costs some bucks, but not as much as a whole set of new wheels would.

Either way, most who commented thought it was a small price to pay to go from being a dog, to being a dog with a chance at a bone.

if you are refering to possible line item exclusions, I think that is best not done. One of the good things about IT is the lack of per car allowances, such as Prod has.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 11 2005, 10:20 PM
Jake, thanks that was a well laid out answer to my concerns...however, how is an overdog singled out? When the RX7 came to ITS it basically took over...

Well, not really....it may have dominated from a results standpoint, but a really well developed and driven Z car can run with an equal RX-7. And the identification of overdogs is based on the physical properties of the cars, not the actual results. Results can provide information .....IF the variables are all known, but care needs to be excercised when weighing results, and they should never be taken as the only "proof".

I think the adjustment process is a good thing even if it affects me ..... I just dont want to see a situation where a certain car needs a 20-30k investment to win against an 8/10ths effort car as this is IT...

[snapback]62352[/snapback]

LOL, well that seems to be EXACTLY what has happened in ITS with the E36. I remember some guys writing, on this site, in reaction to the news that the E36 would be required to run a restrictor, that they would now have to finish the development process if they were to stay at the front. Well, cry us a river, LOL.

Again, the goal is to have the cars properties classed equally so the drivers and crews decide the results, not the badge on the hood.........