A Little Love, Maybe?

[Jiveslug]

I really am happy about the new changes that the guys worked out for IT. I think that leveling the playing field a little bit can only benefit IT racing in the long run. Altho, I have to ask (half-jokingly), why no love for my Corolla? 2310 lbs in ITB for a car that has 75hp from the factory? :P Sheesh. I want my 100# weight break!!!


Either that or let me run forced induction.......

[Knestis]

I think you'll find that the ITAC used a "bang-for-buck" strategy, where they addressed the cars that were most commonly run in any given class, ran them through the math, and made adjustments accordingly. The Corolla, while not a fully-fledged oddball, is not popular enough that a change was going to have significant impact on class balance - the goal of the whole exercise, as opposed to an attempt to put every make/model in the chase.

K

[JamesB]

Adversely you could ask ITAC to review and see if you cars weight still fits into the 'process'. If the number is way off I would figure they could recommend the change.

[Knestis]

One of them can chime in here but it's my understanding that the stated policy of the ITAC is that they we are not supposed to be able to make requests that individual cars be considered for adjustments - even if we simply ask that they "run it through the system."

The point here is to avoid slipping into anything that even resembles "competition adjustment" mode.

K

[JamesB]

Kirk is correct, I misread the actual statement.

[Jake]

I really am happy about the new changes that the guys worked out for IT. I think that leveling the playing field a little bit can only benefit IT racing in the long run. Altho, I have to ask (half-jokingly), why no love for my Corolla? 2310 lbs in ITB for a car that has 75hp from the factory? :P Sheesh. I want my 100# weight break!!!


Either that or let me run forced induction.......
[/b]

Hey you can take mine! I can't get down to weight now - so my 100lbs break just adds insult to injury. I'm afraid if I complain any more, they'll move the MR2 up to ITS at 1500lbs.

[mlytle]

Hey you can take mine! I can't get down to weight now - so my 100lbs break just adds insult to injury. I'm afraid if I complain any more, they'll move the MR2 up to ITS at 1500lbs.
[/b]

and give it a 5mm sir!

[Banzai240]

Opps... wrong thread...

[Bill Miller]

One of them can chime in here but it's my understanding that the stated policy of the ITAC is that they we are not supposed to be able to make requests that individual cars be considered for adjustments - even if we simply ask that they "run it through the system."

The point here is to avoid slipping into anything that even resembles "competition adjustment" mode.

K
[/b]

Kirk,

I'm inclined to agree w/ you, but Andy said this.

I have no problem with people writing in and asking us to consider their car for another look if it didn't get any change.[/b]

[dickita15]

While I share the fear of constant request for adjust as they do in the prod world, some ITAC members have said they did not "run through the process" cars that were not common or that they had no data on.

I do not see the harm in someone who has an oddball asking if thier car has been looked at and suppling some data.

that said they must be prepared to hear "we already look at that car"

[Knestis]

Hmm.

This issue REALLY makes me itch. I hope that the ITAC has some system in place to preserve their first assumptions, the process, decisions already made (and not made), and their INTENTIONS for the benefit of future ITACs.

Robin Miller is famously quoted as saying, "We're only one plane crash from having a single open-wheel racing series in the US," and similarly, we're only a trailer-towing incident, a massive MI, and a fall in the shower from losing the entire core of the current ITAC position on adjustments.

We talk about rules creep. What about implementation creep?

1. "Please 'run my car through the system,' because you didn't do it during the great realignment of 2006."

2. "Please revisit the results of the weight-setting process for my car, because you didn't use the right figures, and therefore got the wrong result."

3. "Please check that the weight for my car is correct, because even though it got adjusted, it's ended up at a disadvantage because the formula is skewed against my car."

4. "Please consider changing the race weight of my car despite what the formula says it should weigh, because it can't be competitive at that weight."

5. "Please decrease the race weight of my car becaue nobody I know is beating the (insert car-to-beat here)."

6. "Please decrease the race weight of my car because I just can't seem to be competitive..."

We can already see examples of all of these arguments here, and the realignment has just been approved. The distinction between a "1" and a "4" is quickly lost in arguments, particularly when the motivating factor for any presentation might simply be a desire to get a competitive break.

If "1" is OK, what is the response when someone tosses the ITAC a "2?" Observers may not make any distinction so, if the answer's different, there's squawking. If the answer's the same, then how about a "3?"

Where does the line get drawn (he asks, showing his bias that there SHOULD in fact be one)?

K

[Jiveslug]

I just made this post as a tongue-in-cheek kind of thing. Ill probably hit up the ITAC to take a look, but I wont be all torn up if it doesnt pan out. Basically, I want to make the request in a fashion that simply asks, "Please take a look and make a change if deemed appropriate." I dont want the ITAC (or anyone else) to think that I am seeking a competiton adjustment. I just figure it cant hurt to ask.

I would like to re-state that I think the new changes that have been made are well done and I thank all of the folks that worked so hard on them.

Regardless of if I hit the track at 2310#s or 2210#s, the Boneyard Special will be a beast. lol.

[Bill Miller]

I want one w/ a body kit like that!!! Almost looks like a Mk I Scirocco!! :119:

[dickita15]

Ryan
i think you should write the letter if for no other reason to give the ITAC to discuss and document exactley what kirk has laid out so well.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hmm.

1. "Please 'run my car through the system,' because you didn't do it during the great realignment of 2006."[/b]

Here is what you might see:

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"
- "Car was passed over in the reset due to lack of interest and information - please write formal proposal to CRB"

2. "Please revisit the results of the weight-setting process for my car, because you didn't use the right figures, and therefore got the wrong result."[/b]

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"
- "The information you have provided does indeed confict with the current information on hand. Tabled for more research"

3. "Please check that the weight for my car is correct, because even though it got adjusted, it's ended up at a disadvantage because the formula is skewed against my car."[/b]

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"

4. "Please consider changing the race weight of my car despite what the formula says it should weigh, because it can't be competitive at that weight."[/b]

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"

5. "Please decrease the race weight of my car becaue nobody I know is beating the (insert car-to-beat here)."[/b]

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"

6. "Please decrease the race weight of my car because I just can't seem to be competitive..."[/b]

- "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters"

We can already see examples of all of these arguments here, and the realignment has just been approved. The distinction between a "1" and a "4" is quickly lost in arguments, particularly when the motivating factor for any presentation might simply be a desire to get a competitive break.

If "1" is OK, what is the response when someone tosses the ITAC a "2?" Observers may not make any distinction so, if the answer's different, there's squawking. If the answer's the same, then how about a "3?"

Where does the line get drawn (he asks, showing his bias that there SHOULD in fact be one)?

K [/b]

I fully expect all the 3-6's to be put to bed. Those are comp adjustments and not what the reset was all about. 1 and 2 are either demand driven where more info will be needed or an error that should be corrected. In either case, it is VERY possible that you get a - "Car was run through the process and fits current parameters".

AB

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I agree that 4-6 should easily be put to bed. In fact, an official statement to the effect that requests like 4-6 will not even be considered, probably wouldn't be a bad idea. To me, No. 3 is a real sticky one. The core of the entire process is based on being able to achieve the 20% or 25% increase in power output, over stock, w/ an IT tune. Mind you, that's a built-to-the-max IT tune. If you just can't get that much out of the car, there needs to be some way to address that.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I agree that 4-6 should easily be put to bed. In fact, an official statement to the effect that requests like 4-6 will not even be considered, probably wouldn't be a bad idea. To me, No. 3 is a real sticky one. The core of the entire process is based on being able to achieve the 20% or 25% increase in power output, over stock, w/ an IT tune. Mind you, that's a built-to-the-max IT tune. If you just can't get that much out of the car, there needs to be some way to address that. [/b]

Bill,

I see that issue as a #2. If written properly with supporting data.



AB

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

I see that issue as a #2. If written properly with supporting data.



AB
[/b]

Yes and no. That's why I said it was sticky. I do see your point though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Requests like 2 & 3 had better come through with a ton of supporting documentation to be given consideration. You can't just tell us we f-ed up, you have to tell us why.

2 & 3 are close to each other - depending on how you phrase them and what you provide.

We have received multiple letters from people who see the class changes as pure comp adjustments - meant to penalize the top cars for their success, development and driver talent.

Fortunately, we have received just as many congratulating the CRB on it's willingness to 'standardise' the process accross the board.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Requests like 2 & 3 had better come through with a ton of supporting documentation to be given consideration. You can't just tell us we f-ed up, you have to tell us why.

2 & 3 are close to each other - depending on how you phrase them and what you provide.

We have received multiple letters from people who see the class changes as pure comp adjustments - meant to penalize the top cars for their success, development and driver talent.

Fortunately, we have received just as many congratulating the CRB on it's willingness to 'standardise' the process accross the board.

AB
[/b]

Andy,

Maybe they could explain how taking weight out of one car penalizes another car.