September fastrack

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[ddewhurst]

***And using Prod as an example is a complete disconnect.***

Jake, that ^ would be YOUR opinion. IIRC, on this site I have read posts (might have even been by you) about how difficult it is to get some rotor motor parts. If we all to your opinion some of us couldn't have the lower links substituted per the written rule.

[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.

[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.

[Knestis]

Wow. Bill IS crabby.

Running the risk of making him worse, Jake DID use the term "membership" - as in "some group of individuals who are members" - rather than "THE membership." There are others among us besides those 5 who think that it's worth pursuing this issue, even if we don't de facto assume that the MR2 move (or any other) should just "happen."

If a move (or DC) allows a car to make its minimum weight, it's NOT guaranteed to be competitive but it IS given a chance - at least on paper. I think that's what the MR2 peeps are looking for. Personally, I have a vested interest in the health of ITB of course so conceptually, I'm good with the idea of learning whether it's a place for those who aren't finding a home in A.

K

[planet6racing]

A chance at what? Seeing the taillights of the B field? If the process works, the addition of the weight should offset their performance by the same amount in B as making the weight in A. If you're at the tail of A, slapping 300# (WAG) in the car and a "B" over the "A" on the car should (will) send you backwards, assuming the car is built to the full extent of the rules in both cases.

There are cars that make poor choices for race cars. I know. I own one.

[Greg Amy]

There are cars that make poor choices for race cars. I know. I own one.[/b]

Uuuuhh, did I miss you buying a different car...?

http://www.kakashiracing.com/reports/2007nhis4.html

[planet6racing]

Jeff bought a fully developed car. The cost to develop said car is very high.

[Doc Bro]

Jeff bought a fully developed car. The cost to develop said car is very high.
[/b]

Send Jeff flowers in the mail....maybe he'll tell you a good Saturn story!!!

R

[Greg Amy]

Jeff bought a fully developed car. The cost to develop said car is very high.[/b]

First: show me ANY car that's cheap to develop to the pointy end of any group?

Second: http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=12619

Third: Where's the other SPS car that was for sale for a while?

Luv ya, Bill, but I don't buy it...

[Jake]

A chance at what? Seeing the taillights of the B field? If the process works, the addition of the weight should offset their performance by the same amount in B as making the weight in A. If you're at the tail of A, slapping 300# (WAG) in the car and a "B" over the "A" on the car should (will) send you backwards, assuming the car is built to the full extent of the rules in both cases.

There are cars that make poor choices for race cars. I know. I own one.
[/b]

Bill - first of all - you are right that most MR2's are still going to be at the back of an ITB field as long as the CB still thinks that the Mid-engined advantage is worth what it is. If they just put the car at the process weight, it would be a good ITB car.

But there the MR2 is not a poor choice for a race car. It has become a poor choice because of the way it is classed. Hell, Minivans could be lapping Porsches if they were classed poorly enough.

[tnord]

But there the MR2 is not a poor choice for a race car. It has become a poor choice because of the way it is classed. Hell, Minivans could be lapping Porsches if they were classed poorly enough.
[/b]

is the ruleset/how the car is classed not a part of the decision making process?

my guess is for many people the answer is "no," which is how we end up in these situations.

[gran racing]

What Greg said. You're by far from the only person running a car that can't find off-the-shelf go fast parts.

If the process works, the addition of the weight should offset their performance by the same amount in B as making the weight in A.[/b]

Bill, you're missing the point in relation to the MR2. Your statement would be accurate if those said cars are making the minimum weight in ITA. The problem being cited is that these cars are unable to make the minimum weight. In this situation, by moving the car to ITB, it would be able to achieve the process weight which then would improve the performance of the car within the class.

[tnord]

The problem being cited is that these cars are unable to make the minimum weight.
[/b]

i thought we already decided that while making weight in a 7 was hard, it can be done.