Problems with new restrictor for E36 BMW 325

[Bill Miller]

Just read the avatar, bay-bee! Whee!
K[/b]

Notice that I haven't participated in this thread at all!

Current recommendation from the ITAC to the CRB (and I think they are pro on it) is that all cars that are currently in ITS and recommended for ITR will remain in ITS,as well as being listed at the new weight and wheel allowance in ITR.

Your choice.

Hows that for friendly and cooperative??
[/b]

Jake,

Is there a time limit on this dual classification (1 year? 2 years ???)

[Knestis]

Notice that I haven't participated in this thread at all!
Jake,

Is there a time limit on this dual classification (1 year? 2 years ???)
[/b]

<crystalballagain>Not only will there be no time limit on individual dual classifications, this new policy will be with us for the next 25 years of IT</crystalballagain>

Again - ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to solve an immediate customer relations problem, without any real examiniation of possible unintended consequences. Some people will love it but the question is whether it is good for the long-term health of the category. Of course, I may just not understand how carefully this policy was examined before it was tacked onto the ITR proposal.

Kirk (munching happily on Mature Formula Troll Chow)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Again - ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to solve an immediate customer relations problem, without any real examiniation of possible unintended consequences. Some people will love it but the question is whether it is good for the long-term health of the category. Of course, I may just not understand how carefully this policy was examined before it was tacked onto the ITR proposal.

Kirk (munching happily on Mature Formula Troll Chow) [/b]

Not true at all Kirk. The ITAC moved from &#39;just ITR&#39;, to dual classification with a sunset (maybe 1 or 2 years), then to a true dual classification after much debate.

Club racing participation is down (from what we have been told), and while ITR has the potential to bring new blood into the fold, as well as have a home for E36 drivers who told the SCCA to pound sand with their move to other clubs, ANY dual classification has the potential to increase short term revenue and grease the skids for long term increases.

For example: ITA is probably seeing the most growth year over year. Why? SM drivers are either running in two groups or letting someone else drive their car in ITA while they bang around in SM. Up here in the Northeast, a &#39;limited prep&#39; SM is classed in SSM (don&#39;t ask). That single car could run in 3 run groups; SSM, SM and ITA - ITE if you wanted to drive in your mirrors all day even.

Getting people involved by just &#39;borrowing&#39; your friends ride during your first year - while he gets to run also - is pretty cool.

A boon for the club I might say. I see no downside to evaluating requests on a case by case - for dual classification. The car that immediately comes to mind is the ITA MR2. Some may want to try in ITB as it seemingly can&#39;t get to it&#39;s new minimum AND it doesn&#39;t make much power in IT trim. Could be a good car at 2450ish.

Let me know why you think it could hurt the long-term health of IT. I must be missing it. I think it helps short and long term growth potential.

[GKR_17]

Current recommendation from the ITAC to the CRB (and I think they are pro on it) is that all cars that are currently in ITS and recommended for ITR will remain in ITS,as well as being listed at the new weight and wheel allowance in ITR.

Your choice.

Hows that for friendly and cooperative??
[/b]

Many thanks. It&#39;s encouraging to know that the work adding the SIR (which also included a cooked motor) won&#39;t have to be thrown out at the end of this season (or next).

Again - ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction to solve an immediate customer relations problem, without any real examiniation of possible unintended consequences. Some people will love it but the question is whether it is good for the long-term health of the category. Of course, I may just not understand how carefully this policy was examined before it was tacked onto the ITR proposal.
[/b]

Other than a few extra lines in the ITCS, what consequences could there be? We&#39;ve already been told that all of the cars in question meet the process in their current condition.

Grafton

[Knestis]

...the question is whether it is good for the long-term health of the category. Of course, I may just not understand how carefully this policy was examined before it was tacked onto the ITR proposal.
[/b]

Kind of sad when it comes down to quoting one&#39;s self but I don&#39;t KNOW that it is bad for the club. I just think it&#39;s a little precipitous to make a change that substantial without a LOT of consideration.

Your SM/ITA example: If that rationale works in that case, how about applying the same thinking to the occasionally-suggested idea of simply listing all IT cars in the Production classes, in their current specifications, where they "fit" competitively? Seriously - if I proposed that, would you support it? Why or why not? We&#39;d have ride-sharing, cross-over opportunities galore, and I&#39;ll bet that revenues from Nationals would go up substantially.

If THAT is OK, how about listing all LP Prod cars in IT, too so we can share some more? Yes or know? Why? What is different?

At some point, fundamental principals of the system get out of whack to accommodate some policy intention that might, in a vacuum, be a completely reasonable thing. Why have classes based on levels of preparation AT ALL? You&#39;ve looked at the NASA PT thing, where you can race a GenII RX7 in one of about 9 classes, right? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Yeah, I look a few steps down the conceptual road in these cases but thought experiments help us understand WHY we are implementing particular changes - or why NOT. What&#39;s reasonable, where dual classing is concerned? May I please have the option of running the Golf in ITC at, say, 2700#? Would that be within the vision coming out of the discussions you describe? Again - why or why not? **

And what potential downsides were identified - and then accepted - during discussion? If there were NONE, then it&#39;s certain that something&#39;s been ignored or missed. That&#39;s the problem with "unanticipated consequences" - they&#39;re not anticipated.

Curmudgeonly yours,

K

** EDIT - and critically, if I ask some future member of the ITAC, after Joest has shopped Andy out from under us, will the answer be the same? Given the freedom and discretion to apply a non-rule like "on a case-by-case basis," what mechanism is in place to help assure that the New Guy doesn&#39;t apply it to further his own personal intentions for the policy, that might be COMPLETELY different than those in place this month with this ITAC and CRB? You can&#39;t put that toothpaste back in the tube.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kind of sad when it comes down to quoting one&#39;s self but I don&#39;t KNOW that it is bad for the club. I just think it&#39;s a little precipitous to make a change that substantial without a LOT of consideration. [/b]

For someone who is against the concept, I have to wonder why you can&#39;t come up with a negative or two...

Your SM/ITA example: If that rationale works in that case, how about applying the same thinking to the occasionally-suggested idea of simply listing all IT cars in the Production classes, in their current specifications, where they "fit" competitively? Seriously - if I proposed that, would you support it? Why or why not? We&#39;d have ride-sharing, cross-over opportunities galore, and I&#39;ll bet that revenues from Nationals would go up substantially.[/b]

Because the core rules are the same. In most cases, a simple ballast and wheel swap is all you have to do. Cross category movement like IT to Prod is not practical. There are manditory things in Prod that are not allowed in IT...so no, I would not support it.

At some point, fundamental principals of the system get out of whack to accommodate some policy intention that might, in a vacuum, be a completely reasonable thing. Why have classes based on levels of preparation AT ALL? You&#39;ve looked at the NASA PT thing, where you can race a GenII RX7 in one of about 9 classes, right? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?[/b]

It&#39;s a good thing for NASA, and part of the reason we are losing entry fees to them. PT is a true run-what-ya-brung class. I don&#39;t like it personally because it is virtually impossible to build a car to the limit of any of those classes. But it attracts drivers because you can build a car how you want it, THEN race it. The SCCA will never be NASA and NASA will never be the SCCA...they are very solid in their own niches, yet I think over the next few years, you will see both of them sliding more toward the &#39;middle&#39; to lure the tweener dollar.

Yeah, I look a few steps down the conceptual road in these cases but thought experiments help us understand WHY we are implementing particular changes - or why NOT. What&#39;s reasonable, where dual classing is concerned? May I please have the option of running the Golf in ITC at, say, 2700#? Would that be within the vision coming out of the discussions you describe? Again - why or why not? **[/b]

Maybe a section needs to be added to the GCR limiting the exposure of the dual classification (DC). This would work just like the PCA&#39;s that caused your first heart-attack. "Thank you for your request, car is currently classified properly". Every request will get consideration, but precious few would actually be viable for a DC.

And what potential downsides were identified - and then accepted - during discussion? If there were NONE, then it&#39;s certain that something&#39;s been ignored or missed. That&#39;s the problem with "unanticipated consequences" - they&#39;re not anticipated.

Curmudgeonly yours,

K[/b]

Why would I feed you my info? :P If you can&#39;t come up with one or two downsides, then why resist your A3&#39;s triple classification? 1625 in ITS, 2000 in ITA, 2350 in ITB....

** EDIT - and critically, if I ask some future member of the ITAC, after Joest has shopped Andy out from under us, will the answer be the same? Given the freedom and discretion to apply a non-rule like "on a case-by-case basis," what mechanism is in place to help assure that the New Guy doesn&#39;t apply it to further his own personal intentions for the policy, that might be COMPLETELY different than those in place this month with this ITAC and CRB? You can&#39;t put that toothpaste back in the tube. [/b]

You could say that about any rule in the GCR.

[Z3_GoCar]

Andy,

What Kirk really fears is the Prod like nature of this. Including the hybrid cars how many classes can a Sprite be in? How about a MGA?? I realize that there&#39;s different motor sizes involved, but why can&#39;t a H-Prod car run in G-Prod? How about a limited prep F-prod Miata, it&#39;s classed in E-prod, could he run this class instead?? I think this path encourages the formation of an old guard similar to what&#39;s found in prod around the spridget/mg guy&#39;s. In reality this is what&#39;s making prod a sick puppy. These cars were hard to find with I was getting my drivers license back in the mid-80&#39;s what&#39;s made them more plentiful today?? I&#39;m sure this all started innocent enough, untill 30 years have gone, and you look back and say what happened to Improved Touring?? It looks like Prod used to, and no one comes out to run it any more. Why??

This is just my take on it, but I&#39;m sure that&#39;s what Kirk the Kermudgeon was thinking.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What makes Production, "Production" is the every-day battle of comp-adjustments and trying to wade through that quagmire.

[Z3_GoCar]

Sure, but if there wasn&#39;t a group that fought for their own self interest spread out across multiple classes, where would the Comp-adjustments come from? I know that the ITAC want to be carfull that PCA&#39;s don&#39;t become comp adjustments, but it&#39;s all too easy when there&#39;s a large group spread across multiple classes of IT to turn this to their desires.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sure, but if there wasn&#39;t a group that fought for their own self interest spread out across multiple classes, where would the Comp-adjustments come from? I know that the ITAC want to be carfull that PCA&#39;s don&#39;t become comp adjustments, but it&#39;s all too easy when there&#39;s a large group spread across multiple classes of IT to turn this to their desires.

[/b]

It&#39;s a philosophy that IT doesn&#39;t support. There is no effort to equalize on-track performance down to the 10th for every car in the ITCS and I hope there never will be. It&#39;s way to difficult and way to political for my blood.

[Knestis]

Andy, I&#39;m NOT worried about you or the current ITAC doing something stupid with the DC (and it&#39;s already got an abbreviation). It&#39;s a policy that we&#39;ll have to live with for a long while, once it&#39;s codified.

The current response to my request to put the Golf in C as well as B (hey, a Jeff Lawton-sized guy and I could share for the weekend without adding ballast, if he ran a little heavy!) is "Thank you for your request, car is currently classified properly," suggesting that the DC will only be applied when there&#39;s a perception that a car is classified IMPROPERLY. Am I with you so far?

Knowing that there&#39;s no "book" in place to tell future ITAC&#39;ers what "properly" or "improperly" are, I could get a completely different answer in two years. I could invoke all of the upsides that you describe here and my request could be found acceptable. Just like folks today argue about the intent behind 10-year-old rules, some day someone will be (quite sensibly) suggesting that the best part about the DC option is that they can decide which class to run based on where they are most likely to be able to win (aka "I want to help C with my entry). Seems silly now but the policy would be in place to enable that point of view.

I WOULD feel better if the parameters for applying the DC were spelled out - with a sunset clause, only in the case of the rollcage diameter minimum formula weight conflict, etc. - but to say that it&#39;s to allow people to share cars opens up a HUGE ball of worms, if that policy becomes a priority over others. You&#39;ve made it clear that, to YOUR way of thinking, it doesn&#39;t trump the existing limitations on Prod/IT cross-polination. Again - what if we have 5 people on the ITAC in a few years who don&#39;t feel that way? Who are sick of trying to gain national status for IT and want a back door to the RubOffs?

Other than the confusion created when people see identical cars running in two classes (ICSCC used to be GREAT for that!) I can&#39;t think of any immediate downsides. I can picture lots of ways that it can go wrong in the future and - I may be the only one in the world on this - I don&#39;t believe that the risk of those unintended consequences is worth the upside. Since I can&#39;t invoke "sharing" as a rational for the Golf DC (and it wouldn&#39;t be hard at ALL to do that - less than 200# of new cage tubes and other ballast), I&#39;m now even more convinced that this policy has been implemented only to satisfy the abused e36 325 constituency. (And, yes - I do think they&#39;ve been dicked around pretty good.) If that&#39;s the case, make the policy honest in its intention, close the barn door, and codify the intent in the ITCS as being a one-time fix for a past mess.

K

[Bill Miller]

Not true at all Kirk. The ITAC moved from &#39;just ITR&#39;, to dual classification with a sunset (maybe 1 or 2 years), then to a true dual classification after much debate.[/b]

Well, it looks like it&#39;s time for another letter. Andy, I can&#39;t even begin to describe my level of disappointment with this. Cars get moved from one class to another almost anually (more than I&#39;d like to see, but if that&#39;s what it takes to fix things, then that&#39;s what it takes), and the discussion of DC (thanks Kirk ) has never been given a second thought.

While I agree w/ Kirk that the E36 crowd got wagged around pretty good (but through no fault of the ITAC, there are others that get to hold the bag on that one, err two), and I could see letting them run in ITS for &#39;07 and maybe &#39;08, there&#39;s no reason to extend it beyond that. Same holds true for any other ITS car that&#39;s moving up to ITR. But please, don&#39;t let this thing go on forever, it&#39;s a can of worms that I don&#39;t think anybody wants to deal with (see Kirk&#39;s comments on the unintended consequences).

I also agree w/ Kirk that this addition to the policy is being done to placate a handful of drivers (mostly the E36 folks, as I don&#39;t think that this would be on the table had they not gotten jerked around w/ the FPR and SIR debacle).

Is this going to be something that&#39;s only for cars that were issued logbooks prior to 1/1/07, or can someone in say &#39;09 build an ITS E36 325is (not picking on the E36, just don&#39;t have the list handy of other ITS cars that are getting bumped up)? I sure hope it&#39;s the former and not the later.

One of the largest consequences of giving these cars permanent DC is that you&#39;ve now opened the door for everybody out there to request DC for there car. "Hey, I want to run my Rabbit GTI in ITC @ its process weight!" Kirk&#39;s car (and all the other A3 VW 2.0 8v ITB cars) is a perfect example. You&#39;ve already got essentially the same car (w/ different body work and a slightly different chassis) running in ITC (the New Beetle), why shouldn&#39;t his car be classed in ITC at its process weight? You could say that for almost any car listed in the ITCS.

And please, don&#39;t use the SM/SSM abortion as an example. There&#39;s absolutely no reason at all for SSM to exist, other than to allow a limited group of people the opportunity to run two races a weekend.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Unless the ITAC is flying to their super-secret bunker in AZ to further penalize the persecuted - and the plane dissapears - I just don&#39;t see it as a &#39;new regime wakes up one morning and has to pick up the pieces and move forward (or backward)&#39; situation. Our newest member, Jake Gulick, did a great job listening, learning and understanding where we were and now are before he jumped in. Simple really.

No, I am not with you about. Given the nature of the process, the majority of cars can &#39;fit&#39;. Some can&#39;t. Those cars aren&#39;t "misclassed". They are tweeners. They are cars that may be listed too light to be practical in a higher class. A DC may be a good thing.

A &#39;Book"? The process is most creatinly documented at it&#39;s core, including the subjective &#39;adders&#39;. The application of those adders in each individual situation is grey for older cars but for cars moved, changed or especially ITR, everything is documented for reference of the CRB or the ITAC. I frequently help people understand where their weight comes from (or more often, why OTHER cars weigh what they weigh).

The DC is not to allow people to share cars. It&#39;s a benefit, not the driving force. More choices for drivers and an attractive category to non-SCCA members is what drives this thought process.

Your &#39;what if the next 5 ITAC guys think different&#39; is a red herring IMHO. You could use that arguement for any change at any time.

What are your examples of how it could &#39;go wrong in the end&#39;?

This policy HAS NOT been put into effect to satisfy the E36 guys. Get that out of your head. SOme IATC members wanted an immediate swapover, some wanted a sunset on a DC, and then discussion was led by a CRB member on the pros and cons to DC&#39;s in general. And here we are. I still haven&#39;t heard a solid reason NOT to do it.

On edit - just saw Bill&#39;s post. Please detail the unintended conciquences so that we can address them. Not just the concept of the UC, but actual concerns. I have already addressed the potential for a flurry of requests that could come in (I doubt it that would happen) would be handled just like PCA&#39;s have been handled.

BTW: I coined "DC"! And now "UC"!

*******Let&#39;s start a new thread********** See RULES section.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...t=0&#entry88002

[pgipson]

Unless the ITAC is flying to their super-secret bunker in AZ [/b]

Why do all the conspiracy theorists have to come here? They are only welcome if they are towing IT race cars. We need more participation.

[Knestis]

What are these "conspiracy theorists" of which you speak? Andy - do you have your foil hat on?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why do all the conspiracy theorists have to come here? They are only welcome if they are towing IT race cars. We need more participation. [/b]

[Ron Earp]

What are these "conspiracy theorists" of which you speak?
[/b]

We&#39;ve sort of got a rule over on my forum about "conspiracy theorists" or Trolls.

If your first posts upon joining a forum just happen to be on the most contraversal subjects on the forum, then you&#39;ve generally got an agenda to push. Haven&#39;t seen it fail yet.

R

[Knestis]

I&#39;m cool then.

My first posts here were, "What are the biggest rimz I can fit on my car?," "How should I double clutch when I upshift?," and "Where is the canyon carving action in VA?"

K

[Ron Earp]

My first posts here were, "What are the biggest rimz I can fit on my car?," "How should I double clutch when I upshift?," and "Where is the canyon carving action in VA?"

K
[/b]

Yeah, I don&#39;t think you&#39;re hitting any nerves with threads like those! Now, if you were to post something like "Why can&#39;t I run up front anymore in my 80% prep XYZ ?", then you&#39;d be right on the money.

Never understood that SSM stuff Bill cites either.

[Andy Bettencourt]

SSM is a Regional only SM class. They splintered off when SCCA accepted SM into the GCR as a class and added some allowances for intake, exhaust and tires. SSM stays real true to the original concept as developed before it was an SCCA class with the primary goal to keep close fair racing cost effective.



SSM is larger in NER than SM.



AB