ITAC News.

[lateapex911]

We have also discussed the massive process failing of ITC but decided to just leave it alone. Means that slow ITB cars have no where to go, but keeps the very good balance that exists in C now, where C exists, anyhow.

Edit: and I gripe about the agnosticism of the process and the committee to the benefits of torque.

Thanks Dave. Yea, jeff, in my 5 years I don't think I missed a call. Sadly, I fubar'ed the MR2 from a hotel room in Watkins glen when Andy had to miss a call, (read the wrong weight line) and NObody said boo, (Cough peter Keane, cough). Maybe I should missed that one! Also remember towing the trailer home once in a construction zone and I kept losing the call...my GF was the dialer-in-er.

Yea, Chip, ITC is, well, ITC. IT seemed like it was working where it was working, and messing with it to benefit ITB etc would mess it up. So we kinda left it sorta as is. (IIRC)

And torque was struggled mightily with as well. Lot's of viewpoints on that one!

The ITR thing is interesting in hindsight. ITR would NEVER have happened (well, probably not for years and years) if not for the issue with the E36. necessity is the mother of invention and the issues that car caused was the straw that allowed us to sell the class to the higher ups. Ironically, it's what constrains the class. We realized that, to a degree, but, it seemed like a "better that than nothing at all" kinda deal.

I think the main issue we kept running up against was how close to perfection do we want to get, and at what costs...and how realistic is it?? And everyone, and everyone's friend had a different tolerance and opinion on that.

[Chip42]

Small turnout last night but we did make some progress on B, I'd say we're nearly there. Theres one new ITA classification out there, SHOULD be a no brainer but Will wait a month.

Jake, my biggest concerns for IT are general for the club. We have very different cars now. Some are nice and heavy and even with increased power levels still look like they slot into the existing classes, but more and more, modern cars don't fit IT, nor prod, GT, etc... Due to output, displacement, and or turbochargers. Fixing ITR will regain some of those cars, but sooner than later ANOTHER class wILL need to be added to the top of the stack. And we are all going to need to figure out turbos. And as racers, we are going to have to learn to run modern car technology. I seriously doubt club racing can survive on 80s and 90s machines forever.

[shwah]

Don't worry. Less people are waiting on it now than in the past. A lot of us have moved on to where we have an opportunity to compete.

[Chip42]

In all honesty, Chris, I feel roughly the same way and am looking at making the same move. The problem you have with itb isn't going to get fixed here. What would "fix" that, and I use quotes because tjere is substantial difference in opinion regarding what, if anything, is broken, is a reworking of how we classify cars in IT or at least in ITB. Do you honestly think that is going to happen anytime soon? Right now we aim to get every car in the itcs processed according the the way we say it is done. It will help some old cars which were never processed. That's about it. MkII and up VWs, Hondas, MR2s, etc... Are all ready "correct" per process math.

I await your rants about mr2s and Hondas which, in my experience, are NOT a problem.

[gran racing]

It's just too bad how this was approached. For several years, people were thinking this was going to be done MUCH sooner. It was suggested before as a way to not spend time on cars that people didn't care about was to post in Fastrack that if a person wanted their ITB car reviewed, submit a re-classification request. Then do it in the order requests were received. Or something so it's not one massive project which a lot of work wouldn't matter in the real world since people weren't driving them.

I too have moved on (not for that reason), but still think it was a big flop in administration at least from an outsider's perspective. It is what it is though.

[shwah]

I await your rants about mr2s and Hondas which, in my experience, are NOT a problem.

Wait on dude. The issues have always been with the process math, the false belief that the system is truly objective, and the penalty of getting that wrong in high #/hp classes (NOT with the specific cars people use as examples). As long as the ITAC is not willing to use additional information to make decisions, we get the ITB that we have. Not my problem at this point.

[lateapex911]

I think SCCA missed the boat years ago. Class consolidation and making ALL classes that make the numbers Runoffs eligible. But, that threatened pet classes of the gate keepers, sooooo, it was deemed Such a move would ruin what is SCCA only 'entry level racing category'.
Prod was drying up, but, they woke up and smelled the coffee, and drafted new rules that tempted many IT guys who wanted to be Runoffs bound. Then, the ST category was created by those who wanted IT to be a Runoffs eligible category, and poof, more defectors.
I haven't looked at subscription numbers, but my general gut feeling is that IT is 33% double dipping Miatas of one form or another. Not everyone wants to focus on the Runoffs though and certain regions have great fields and racing. Which is cool, but I think the club missed a great opportunity to increase participation, rather than just move participants...

[Bill Miller]

Wait on dude. The issues have always been with the process math, the false belief that the system is truly objective, and the penalty of getting that wrong in high #/hp classes (NOT with the specific cars people use as examples). As long as the ITAC is not willing to use additional information to make decisions, we get the ITB that we have. Not my problem at this point.

In fairness Chris, I wouldn't throw it all on the ITAC. If the higher-ups didn't want something to happen, it didn't matter how much objective information and unified support the ITAC put behind something, it wasn't going to happen. That's just the way the SCCA is, and I doubt that will ever change. You know me, you know I've been around this for a long time, and have beat this drum for a long time, but like you, it's not my problem anymore. For a while, I held out hope that real change might happen, but eventually I realized that it wasn't going to. I agree with Jake, IT today is better than it was 10-15 years ago, and I guess I should take the glass half full approach. I'll always look back at the way things were, and know that I had some part in making them better. I'm ok with that. Working with the group on the ITR project was fun. The leadership of the SCCA has used a tried and true strategy to prevent real change, they stall long enough that people get frustrated and disgusted and move on.

[Chip42]

Wait on dude. The issues have always been with the process math, the false belief that the system is truly objective, and the penalty of getting that wrong in high #/hp classes (NOT with the specific cars people use as examples). As long as the ITAC is not willing to use additional information to make decisions, we get the ITB that we have. Not my problem at this point.

well, FWIW, we are attempting to make the system more objective by evaluating basic class-wide statistics like mean, standard deviation, etc.. of engine displacement, OEM hp/litre, and OEM published torque numbers, brake sizes, etc... basically, if there's an adder indicated and being used, we want to be able to prove that it's use is justified. no plans to implement until review is complete, but we're looking at it.

I can't argue with you otherwise. it's true - mistakes in actual hp matter much more in the slower classes than the faster ones due to the hp/weight numbers we use. also, the entire system is based on the belief that cars will make 25 or X% gain over stock OR a specific WHP number, and that driveline losses are very similar across the class. we don't count aero - which again increases in effect with low power, boxy cars typical of ITB and C, and we don't always get it right on the gain number. then you have to add in the politics (many examples), disagreeing information (Audi), arguments against conviction (MR2, many people who got their asses roundly kicked by higher prep level cars), ...

in order to become 100% objective there needs to be MUCH more data than we will ever have access to, and the stability of the rules re: classifications will disappear as development changes the hard facts.

but you are right. the system, as it is, has the ability to screw "you" on the track if the inputs are even slightly off, which can easily happen without any malicious intent at all, and the room for error goes up with speed because the multiplication of the error gets smaller.

all that said - IT is a helluva lot better off now than it was when it was 100% subjective - if you disagree with that, well.... I don't know what to say to help bring you on board. I'm sorry you feel disenfranchised.

Prod allows for actual competitive adjustments of a given car against the others in the class. that can cut both ways, and FWIW, the prep 2 classification in HP are very "standardized" and prep 2 rules mean that "warts" are less able to be ironed out (say, a really poor intake design) - Prod, and now ST and GTL, have borrowed HEAVILY fro the IT ruleset and more and more, from the IT classification philosophy. they also seem to disregard aero, brake sizes, standard gearing, and torque, just like us. but they HAVE THE OPTION of changing weight, lift, CR, wheel width, etc... to balance things out - or help/spite particular cars. how you see such adjustments all depends on how much you like conspiracy theories or what end of the help/spite curve you find yourself, I guess. I truly believe that subjectivity is the only way to get balance in mixed marque racing, but humans will always prevent actual balance from happening because human. but I do think the PAC / CRB are honestly working for parity.

I like prod, we have a prod car in our stable, and are discussing building another. but I love IT, despite having chosen the wrong car for it. I don't think your car of choice is so far off, but to each their own. enjoy HP, what I have seen of your build so far looks VERY nice and I'm excited to see how you do with it.

[lateapex911]

If I were building a car today, I'd look hard at Prod. Hard. STL, done right, is pretty pricey, (to do a full and proper build) and (although i haven't studied it hard for a while) is still a category/class in flux. The STAC has a vision and changes will happen to get to that vision. And I'm not sure I'm onboard with the vision.
Thats if i was doing "serious" club racing. IT would be not a consideration because of it's exclusion from the Runoffs.

If I'm just goofing around and don't care about results, then maybe IT could be fun. I think it's easier today to pick a car, and be 'competitive" (Close to the front) than a decade ago, with more choices, AND........I don't fear every new classification. (!4 years ago, I'd read fastrack with fear in my heart: "Oh crap what'd they put in ITA NOW that will fuck me over?" And it seemed like every so often they'd plop in some new overdog, in an attempt to fix the old overdog. But it just made a bigger mess) Todays IT classifications are less nerve wracking. And there are far less "Hmmm, I think they missed the boat on that one" moments. And I trust the ITAC isn't screwing around making sure their buds are sitting pretty, which 15 years ago was NOT the case.