September fastrack

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Dual classification is intended to allow entrants of cars that have difficulty achieving the specified process weight in one IT class to race in the next-lower class at the appropriate process weight for that class - this option being seen as preferable to forcing all entrants into one class or the other. Dual classification is not intended to achieve any other goal (e.g., providing opportunities for multiple entries in a single car), even if some individuals in some instances may realize other benefits from this allowance. Requests for dual classification based on rationale beyond the stated intent will not be considered."[/b]

Very well written, however, write your Fastrack responses to these 'Dear ITAC" letters (because they will come):

1. MY car can't make weight. I built an uber-cage to remain safe and there is no way I can get to minimum. Please don't make me make my car less safe to be competitive. Please dual class the 'Gremlin' in ITA and ITB.

2. MY car can't make weight. I am 6' 5" and 260lbs and my combination of entrant and car seem to be a candidate, please dual class the 'Pacer' in ITS and ITA.

3. MY car can make weight, but only at significant expense in time and money. As an entry-level class for SCCA, I shouldn't have to do anything but remove the interior and add a cage. Rotisseries? 100% stripping? NO I SAY! Let the average guy play at an achievable weight. Please dual class the 'Rambler' in ITB and ITC.

Do I think it's the best answer? No. Do I think it's a pragmatic solution that balances the various needs? Yes.

K[/b]

What do you think IS the best answer? Could it be the most "pragmatic solution that balances the various needs"...or is it something else?

[Knestis]

Very well written, however, write your Fastrack responses to these 'Dear ITAC" letters ...[/b]

That's too easy - "The car is correctly specified." Actually, if it were me, I would add, "Piss off, you great tosser" or words to that effect.

do you think DC opens the door for the elimination of the "no garauntee of competitiveness clause?"[/b]

Not in the least. It would be an adjunct mechanism to allow IT specification the process to work, and introduction of that process didn't obsolete that clause. I don't think it's written particularly clearly but it's held up relatively well.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's too easy - "The car is correctly specified." Actually, if it were me, I would add, "Piss off, you great tosser" or words to that effect.

[/b]

Not letting you off that easy...

- My ITA RX-7 can get down to minimum weight but only after considerable time and expense. Time and expense I consider to be well outside the intent of the class. Please dual class the 12A RX-7 in ITA and ITB.

- My MK1 MR-2 can't get any closer than 80lbs of minimum weight. Please dual class in ITA and ITB.

Your responses to these two given the framework of your proposed wording?

[tnord]

krik -

do you think DC opens the door for the elimination of the "no garauntee of competitiveness clause?"

[lateapex911]

I'm not Kirk, but.

I do NOT think that any rule does that short of re writing the line....

[ddewhurst]

Let evolution take it's course. Let em die or IT will become the same as the poster child. (H & G Production)

Drew, no comment required. We should ALL learn from history.

[lateapex911]

But David, i suggest that you are confusing the issues. We're using the RX-7 as an example, because it has characteristics that make it very much a good consideration for dual classing. (Existing models built to a then mandated heavier weight, difficulty in getting certain years of the spec line to a new lower weight, etc)

This is NOT a discussion that is limited to, or centered on, old and obscure cars, with failing parts supplies.

((And using Prod as an example is a complete disconnect. They avoided the obselete parts issues by changing the rules on a car by car basis and allowing alternate designs of those parts. That is clearly NOT what we are discussing here.)

If there were a car that had been classed for say 1 or 2 years when it got a weight change that made it very difficult for the existing entrants to acheive, (and some could not) that was a popular car and only 7 years old, would you say the same thing??

[tnord]

:devil:

But isn't that the whole point (perceived) of the DC/B move? To allow the cars in question to become more competitive? Even though the car fits within the paramaters of the process in a certain class, we're going to move it to this class so that it can be more competitive? Won't others use this as precedent to justify a move for their car? Even though the no competitive clause may remain in text, it's actual function goes to zilch if we start trying to balance the performance of all cars "on the head of a pin."

KISS

:/devil:

[lateapex911]

Travis, the whole point of ALL the classification moves is to create the playing fields in the most level manner possible. BUT....they will never be perfect, and there is no guarantee that they will be any percentage of perfect.. Simple.

But it doesn't mean we can't try...

[Knestis]

Your responses to these two given the framework of your proposed wording?[/b]

Wouldn't be an issue because they would have been proactively considered by the ITAC and set with the institution of the DC policy, using whatever parameters they felt ARE appropriate. They would also have documented HOW they arrived at their decisions, and put those into the intent record.

...even though the car fits within the paramaters of the process in a certain class, we're going to move it to this class so that it can be more competitive?[/b]

As long as it's aligned by the process in its new class, it's not benefiting from some extraordinary measure to make it "more competitive." It's being made "just as competitive as the process is intended to make all cars in ITB."

My point about the "no guarantee" clause being badly worded, is that it isn't really that. It is - or should be - a statement about what won't be done to try to level competitiveness (e.g., use of competition adjustments [bleah], or model-specific allowances). It should SAY what it means so the phrase can't be repurposed to make arguments unrelated to its real intent. We spend a lot of time farting around trying to decode intent of statements like that, when it's not particularly hard to be explicit about them in the first place.

K

[tnord]

As long as it's aligned by the process in its new class, it's not benefiting from some extraordinary measure to make it "more competitive." It's being made "just as competitive as the process is intended to make all cars in ITB."

[/b]

and once the car gets into ITB at it's still uncompetitive but easier to achieve weight, the next phase will be the chinese-water-torture method of asking for a weight adjustment, which gets into your model specific issue.

that's what i see coming.

[dickita15]

Travis,

I can’t say I understand where this correlation between being competitive and DCs is.

The Process is the tool that we use to class cars competitively.

Tweeners fit the process in more than one class.

Often competitors in said tweeners are split as to in which class at which weight they would rather race.

Dual Classification allows the car to be raced in either class at the process weight and allow the free market to decide where it fits best.

[tnord]

Travis,

I can’t say I understand where this correlation between being competitive and DCs is.

[/b]

because that's what they're ultimately trying to get, this is just the first step in the process. They feel like the car is currently uncompetitive as classed, and at least in the case of the RX7, no weight adjustment can really be made, as it's already hard enough to get there (but it CAN be done, which is all that matters). So the first step is to get it moved down a class and add weight. But since it is being classed using the same process, it will likely still be too heavy to really be competitive. now....since it was moved down in class and up in weight, there IS some room to adjust the minimum as it's already been proven to be capable of making the lighter weight. let the letters pour in, the 20page threads fly, and if the weight is adjusted, there's your model specific action setting precedent for everyone else.

[dickita15]

Jake is right. The Mr2 should not be lumped in to the Rx7, assuming that the vast majority of the mr2 guys want to buy new wheels then let it happen. They do not need DCs.

because that's what they're ultimately trying to get, this is just the first step in the process. They feel like the car is currently uncompetitive as classed, and at least in the case of the RX7, no weight adjustment can really be made, as it's already hard enough to get there (but it CAN be done, which is all that matters). So the first step is to get it moved down a class and add weight. But since it is being classed using the same process, it will likely still be too heavy to really be competitive. now....since it was moved down in class and up in weight, there IS some room to adjust the minimum as it's already been proven to be capable of making the lighter weight. let the letters pour in, the 20page threads fly, and if the weight is adjusted, there's your model specific action setting precedent for everyone else.
[/b]

I disagree. Just because it can be done if you push the envelope and pick the right year does not mean all those cars parked can be lightened.

You said it yourself. The only way to get a negative competition is to convince the ITAC that the process fails the car. That is a whole other fight and not a good reason to not solve the problem at hand.

The advantage is that even if you are right and the Rx7 is not competitive in B at least by being able to get a car to weight I think people will give some of these parked cars a shot.

[Knestis]

and once the car gets into ITB at it's still uncompetitive but easier to achieve weight, the next phase will be the chinese-water-torture method of asking for a weight adjustment, which gets into your model specific issue.

that's what i see coming.[/b]

I see it coming, too but not caused by DCs - should they come to be. The two issues are unrelated unless someone wants to conflate them to further their particular agenda. While I'd LOVE to find a way to do in that kind of thinking, I can't.

However, I'll vehemently oppose competition adjustments (bleah) wherever I see them.

K

[tnord]

I see it coming, too but not caused by DCs - should they come to be. The two issues are unrelated unless someone wants to conflate them to further their particular agenda. While I'd LOVE to find a way to do in that kind of thinking, I can't.

However, I'll vehemently oppose competition adjustments (bleah) wherever I see them.

K
[/b]

i agree that they are two issues (though in this case not unrelated) that can be handled separately. here's the thing, it could be desguised as an adjustment to the process for rotaries, not as the model specific adjustment they're motivated by.

if the next logical step is shunned, and they're still uncompetitive in ITB, what's the point? the only way i can see this working is if it's accepted that they're bringing guns to knife fights. IF someone has very well developed ITA 7, then brings it down to ITB where the regional culture in B is less competitive than A, it could work. but then of course the B guys will just step up their game.....

so again.....what's the risk/reward of this?

[Knestis]

...here's the thing, it could be desguised as an adjustment to the process for rotaries, not as the model specific adjustment they're motivated by. [/b]

Huh?

if the next logical step is shunned, and they're still uncompetitive in ITB, what's the point? the only way i can see this working is if it's accepted that they're bringing guns to knife fights. IF someone has very well developed ITA 7, then brings it down to ITB where the regional culture in B is less competitive than A, it could work. but then of course the B guys will just step up their game.....[/b]

There's NOTHING wrong with competition - we call it "racing" after all - and if the result is more competition in B, that's a good thing. The point is that they will have been given a shot at actually getting treated right by the process, which quite frankly takes away one point about which someone can complain.

K

[tnord]

Huh?

iirc, there's a different power adder factor for rotaries than there is for piston engines. as a workaround to asking for the first gen RX-7 to get a weight break, they can argue that the process fails the rotary engine, and an adjustment needs to be made. to me this is the two different ways of asking for the same thing, but i'm generally not in the majority it seems.

[quote]

it'll take away one, and open up another ---- min weight being too high.

quite frankly, i really don't care much at all. have fun.

[Jake]

FWIW, I don't consider the MR2 a tweener. I see the RX7 as one where there may be much controversy over where it should be. But there aren't many MR2's around - and the ones I've talked that own ITA cars as well as many that would like to build their cars - ALL want to go to ITB. Furthermore, many top ITB drivers have weighed in on the issue and also believe it should be in ITB.

The absolute worst idea is the one on the table - putting the controversial RX7 move in as a rider to the MR2 bill. Or making DC a prerequisite for a move that membership wants.

Jake

[planet6racing]

But there aren't many MR2's around - and the ones I've talked that own ITA cars as well as many that would like to build their cars - ALL want to go to ITB. Furthermore, many top ITB drivers have weighed in on the issue and also believe it should be in ITB.

The absolute worst idea is the one on the table - putting the controversial RX7 move in as a rider to the MR2 bill. Or making DC a prerequisite for a move that membership wants.

Jake
[/b]

Emphasis added.

I was going to stay away from this, but I'm crabby, so I'll dial in my two cents:

How is this what membership wants? Asking the 5 people who drive MR2s to go to B is hardly what the membership wants.

From my membership standpoint, I say keep it in A. Moving it to B, at the process weight, will change NOTHING, other than the happy go lucky feeling that you can make weight. You will still be at the back of the B field, looking for some other excuse. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF COMPETITIVENESS IN IT. Period. End of sentence.

Again, just my $0.02.