Need help understanding VW classifications

[Knestis]

There's a lot of history here, Eddie and I'm going to be the very LAST in line to defend every decision that's been made since 1983. I wasn't on the ITAC during the Great Realignment but there are a couple of good reasons that the process wasn't applied to every car in the ITCS:

** Simply to save volunteer time, cars that were rarely raced were left alone - the assumption was that if anyone cared enough, they would request that these be revisited but that it didn't make sense to do it proactively. We have since had a couple of requests like this (e.g., most recently Pintos). You can - and SHOULD, I think - do the same.

** We have to recognize that there's such a thing as "close enough." It's frankly WAY optimistic to believe that we are within 10 pounds. I personally think that the wobbliness of most club racing drivers' abilities - even over the course of one on-track session - accounts for more variance in lap times than would even as much as 100# on something like a Golf. I'm SURE that levels of preparation account for way more than that. I grant that it would be symbolically valuable if we could be sure that the make/model of car was accounted for in a way that took it completely out of the picture as a variable in the equation that adds up to "competitiveness," but it's not realistic in the real world.

** People don't like change. If we did a stem-to-stern realignment, some drivers would be thrilled to get less weight while others would be unhappy because the same process netted them a heavier car. It's problematic for an organization like SCCA to change anything because members see the organization as set up to serve them - often individually.

** If one thinks about it, it's not surprising that the ITAC (and other committees), since they are made up of a cross section of member, vary as much as the entire membership in terms of how they think about things, their priorities, beliefs, experiences, etc. There are a couple of opportunities in the process for injecting "judgment" and not everyone does that the same way.(1) I personally think that repeatability and clarity trump the application of subjectivity but you need to recognize something that's very important - the ITAC members who support that aspect of the process do it because they think it gets the cars closer together in terms of competitiveness. There are plenty of examples in the ITCS where if the process were applied like a formula, member perceptions of inequity would go WAY up.

It would be a simple thing to have everything one way if instead of the ITAC and CRB, we had "Kirk." Screw you all, here's how it's going to be, so it's consistent and fair in my eyes.



I could bust my butt to use the process down to three decimal places and people would still be able to find fault if it didn't go their way.

Use the system to make incremental adjustments and we'll try our very best to be consistent. We've just initiated a process to record new classifications so we have a trail of crumbs back to our assumptions. Request that your car be re-examined and we'll see what happens.

K

EDIT (1) - Bill cited one - the "can it get there?" question. The other is the "IT power multiplier." In an effort to be more "fair," a different multiplier (other than the standard 1.25 factor) has been used. In some rare cases, "known IT power" has been used, where the ITAC thought that a sufficient body of evidence was available. Again, I'm not a fan of some of these practices but (again) again, it's a committee of racers who have different ways of doing what they believe to be the right thing.

[BlueStreak]

K - first off, thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions in such detail - this is the kind of feedback that provides the sport a service, and I thank all of you for both your feedback and service to the sport.

There's a lot of history here, Eddie and I'm going to be the very LAST in line to defend every decision that's been made since 1983. I wasn't on the ITAC during the Great Realignment but there are a couple of good reasons that the process wasn't applied to every car in the ITCS:

** Simply to save volunteer time, cars that were rarely raced were left alone - the assumption was that if anyone cared enough, they would request that these be revisited but that it didn't make sense to do it proactively. We have since had a couple of requests like this (e.g., most recently Pintos). You can - and SHOULD, I think - do the same.

Makes perfect sense, I just figured given a long enough time line, all cars could get the treatment.

** We have to recognize that there's such a thing as "close enough." It's frankly WAY optimistic to believe that we are within 10 pounds. I personally think that the wobbliness of most club racing drivers' abilities - even over the course of one on-track session - accounts for more variance in lap times than would even as much as 100# on something like a Golf. I'm SURE that levels of preparation account for way more than that. I grant that it would be symbolically valuable if we could be sure that the make/model of car was accounted for in a way that took it completely out of the picture as a variable in the equation that adds up to "competitiveness," but it's not realistic in the real world.

Agreed, but personally, I highly value the "symbolic value".

** People don't like change. If we did a stem-to-stern realignment, some drivers would be thrilled to get less weight while others would be unhappy because the same process netted them a heavier car. It's problematic for an organization like SCCA to change anything because members see the organization as set up to serve them - often individually.

Personally, I don't care if we upset those who see the organization as something that should serve them individually. These are the kind of people whom I want to see pack up their marbles and find another playground.

** If one thinks about it, it's not surprising that the ITAC (and other committees), since they are made up of a cross section of member, vary as much as the entire membership in terms of how they think about things, their priorities, beliefs, experiences, etc. There are a couple of opportunities in the process for injecting "judgment" and not everyone does that the same way.(1) I personally think that repeatability and clarity trump the application of subjectivity but you need to recognize something that's very important - the ITAC members who support that aspect of the process do it because they think it gets the cars closer together in terms of competitiveness. There are plenty of examples in the ITCS where if the process were applied like a formula, member perceptions of inequity would go WAY up.

Agreed, and given the info that has been available in the past, the job that the ITAC has done thus far, and I mean since the beginning, is extraordinarily admirable. I just *think*, perhaps in error, that with today's technology, we ought to be able to model a cars performance potential to a higher degree of accuracy. This isn't about whether the ITAC is doing a good job, they are, and I truly appreciate that. This is about how can we make it better going forward from today, which, fortunately, seems to be the attitude you have.

It would be a simple thing to have everything one way if instead of the ITAC and CRB, we had "Kirk." Screw you all, here's how it's going to be, so it's consistent and fair in my eyes.



I could bust my butt to use the process down to three decimal places and people would still be able to find fault if it didn't go their way.

Use the system to make incremental adjustments and we'll try our very best to be consistent. We've just initiated a process to record new classifications so we have a trail of crumbs back to our assumptions. Request that your car be re-examined and we'll see what happens.

For reasons mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm not sure which car is the right car to write the request for.

Edit: and to help decide, which of the VW platforms have already been through "the process"?

[Knestis]

I informally asked, before I joined the ITAC but after our ARRC success, for Andy to informally check the MkIII against the process and he indicated that it's correct. About the time I transitioned onto the ITAC, Dave Gran's request to re-examine the same car received the same result. It's safe to say that it's therefore "been through the process."

I don't think that the MkII was adjusted. I THINK that the MkI has been lightened in recent memory but don't remember when or how much. Some digging through Fastracks would answer that.

K

[Bill Miller]

I informally asked, before I joined the ITAC but after our ARRC success, for Andy to informally check the MkIII against the process and he indicated that it's correct. About the time I transitioned onto the ITAC, Dave Gran's request to re-examine the same car received the same result. It's safe to say that it's therefore "been through the process."

I don't think that the MkII was adjusted. I THINK that the MkI has been lightened in recent memory but don't remember when or how much. Some digging through Fastracks would answer that.

K

Kirk,

The Mk I lost 100# as part of 'the great realignment'.

I just want to make a comment about something. We've heard several times that "anything w/in 100# of spec weight wasn't adjusted". The other comments about using percentage instead of actual weight made me noodle on this some more. +/- 100# on a car that weighs 2500# - 3000# and makes 175-200 hp is a whole different situation than +/- 100# on a car that weighs 2000# and makes 100 - 120 hp. That being said, I think that you can't just say "anything w/in 100# is good enough". There's more to it than that.

[gran racing]

Bill, that's exactly what I said in the other Golf thread.

[lateapex911]

Kirk,

We've heard several times that "anything w/in 100# of spec weight wasn't adjusted".

Can you quote those quotes? i'd like to see who and what context...

[Bill Miller]

Can you quote those quotes? i'd like to see who and what context...

Jake,

Do you dispute that this is what we've heard? I'll be happy to dig back through the threads.

[Knestis]

Jake,

Do you dispute that this is what we've heard? I'll be happy to dig back through the threads.

I don't think that's the case either but I'm the new guy.

K

[ddewhurst]

Make it simple, ask Andy............. Or to protect myself should I say IIRC Andy made the questioned process weight statement.

[MMiskoe]

I'll say it again - why not just publish the details on how each car got through the process? At least for cars that are new or are having weight/class changes made to them?

Seems there has been a lot of traffic on this board this spring alone that revolves around how a car arrived at its weight. Why should the means by which a weight was assigned be such a top secret thing? Perhaps that is the first question.

Matt

[Knestis]

I support that approach in principle, Matt.

K

EDIT - let's make sure everyone knows this is Kirk's view, not an ITAC position. Opinions may differ and reasonable people may have reasonable reasons for thinking this would be problematic. For example, I can see how it could bog the ITAC down responding to specific detail requests for adjustments re: adders for brakes and so forth. I don't believe that it's good for the category to get sucked into any more model-specific tweaks in attempts to get within the nth degree on weight specifications.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Unless I am not understanding what is being disputed, I have said a million times that anything inside of 100lbs of it's process weight wasn't adjusted during the 'correction' of Feb 06.

It does however create this theoretical 'range' of 200lbs - but I can tell you honestly that there is not one car that I know of off the top of my head that is 'light' by less than 100lbs...and anything under and over got corrected. Almost 30 cars got changed actually.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...k-addendum.pdf

[Andy Bettencourt]

And Iwill dispute that the process is some secret thing. It has been gone over here time and time again. Publishing something that is partially subjective opens up topics for endless debate - of which will change nothing.

In other words, its very hard to put in writing. Matt and I will go over it step-by-step in 2 weeks at our first race - and after 15 minutes of discussion, it will be clear how it works and he will be able to apply it to his car. The issue is that we will have some debate as to 'what is right and when' - stuff that you can't do when you see this written out...that in a lot of cases leads to more questions that can't be immediately answered like they can be in conversation/debate.

[gran racing]

but I can tell you honestly that there is not one car that I know of off the top of my head that is 'light' by less than 100lbs..

That's a bit concerning. LOL

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's a bit concerning. LOL

Why? All the cars that were light by 100 or more got corrected. The point is all the cars are over by less than 100lbs - and there are probably no ACTUAL 200lb differences - just THEORETICAL.

[lateapex911]

Well, it's hard to go over history, but my understanding of the situation was that after the classes got the performance targets finalized, the ITAC went through and made some adjustments, which has become known as "The Great realignment" or "The Feb addendum".

Understand that there are literally hundreds of models in the ITCS, and each car needs to have some basic facts to make weight specs: Stock HP, Engine type and IT power, suspension info, brake info, transmission, stock weight and IT achievable weight.

So, as I understood it, the "Great realignment" was to go through the ITCS, look at the cars on a case by case basis, skip over the obscure and un-raced cars, and hit the "High" and "low" points...in this case when we ran a car through the process, if it wasn't "off" by 100 pounds, it didn't get a close scrutiny and adjustment. That was left for the next step, which would be member driven. (Remember, any ITAC member is also an SCCA member. So requesting a car to be run through the process can be done by anyone, in or out of the ITAC.)

Now, again, it's my understanding that when such requests are made, the granularity of "go-no go" is finer...50 pounds. That's the operative limit.

Obviously, with hundreds of cars to go through, research and act on, the ITAC had to spend months, and lots of loooooong con calls, so opening up the granularity was appropriate for the "Great realignment". But, the actual granularity in use is, to the best of my understanding, 50 pounds.

[gran racing]

Why?

Because I was just busting on you and giving you a hard time.That's all. :cool: The way I read that sentence meant that you couldn't think of a car that wasn't off by at least 100 lbs. I knew what you meant.

I never said the process is a secret, but was responding to your statement that the previous group never had it documented. It made me raise my eyebrows when you openly state that "its very hard to put in writing" and this group also doesn't have it fully documented. (I fully understand there are some subjective items when classing cars and don't have a problem with that.) So I found your statement about the previous group ironic. You guys are doing an absolutely fantastic job and give you a ton of credit for it. I'll even buy you and Gulick the first round for our beer discussion.

Since Kirk seems to think it's just about a me factor, I benefited hugely by the adjustments made as it wasn't very long ago my Prelude was in ITA at the same exact weight. Maybe I actually care about ITB more than just how it impacts just my car directly K.? Nah, you're right. Whatever.

[Knestis]

>> (Andy) ... I have said a million times that anything inside of 100lbs of it's process weight wasn't adjusted during the 'correction' of Feb 06.

>> (Jake) Now, again, it's my understanding that when such requests are made, the granularity of "go-no go" is finer...50 pounds. That's the operative limit.

AH - I failed to make the distinction between the two circumstances. Thanks.

K

[Bill Miller]

Can you quote those quotes? i'd like to see who and what context...

Unless I am not understanding what is being disputed, I have said a million times that anything inside of 100lbs of it's process weight wasn't adjusted during the 'correction' of Feb 06.

Is that good enough for you Jake?

So, as I understood it, the "Great realignment" was to go through the ITCS, look at the cars on a case by case basis, skip over the obscure and un-raced cars, and hit the "High" and "low" points...in this case when we ran a car through the process, if it wasn't "off" by 100 pounds, it didn't get a close scrutiny and adjustment. That was left for the next step, which would be member driven. (Remember, any ITAC member is also an SCCA member. So requesting a car to be run through the process can be done by anyone, in or out of the ITAC.)

Now, again, it's my understanding that when such requests are made, the granularity of "go-no go" is finer...50 pounds. That's the operative limit.

Help me understand this. You ran all the cars through the process, got process weights for them, and then used a +/- 100# limit to decide if they would get adjusted or not. Some cars got adjusted. But, if someone asks for their car to get looked at again, it's now a +/- 50# window? You were already adjusting cars, why not just work w/ the +/- 50# window, if that's what you ultimately intended it to be?

Newly classed cars get the benefit of landing spot on their process weight, yet other cars could be +/- up to 100#? Does anyone else think this just a tad bit screwy?

One of the main things behind the 'great realignment' was that all the cars were supposed to be run through the process, and adjusted if necessary. That was a pro-active objective operation (or at least it was supposed to be). But now, it looks like it was a "we'll get you close, but if you ask us again, we might be able to sharpen our pencils a bit". This +/- 50# or +/- 100# window is pretty much BS. Either you had faith in the process numbers or you didn't. You input the data, turn the crank, and the number that comes out the back is the number that you use. Sure, some people might be upset if their car gained weight, but you could point to an objective process that was equally applied to all cars (gee, where have I heard that before?). If the people w/ the newly classified cars get the benefit of 'hitting' their process weight, so should the people w/ the rest of the cars.

I can certainly see where there would be cases where the weights would have hovered around the cage size 'boundaries', and you would have had issues where some people might have had to re-cage. Those could have been handled on a case by case basis, as I would be willing to bet that there wouldn't be that many of them.

And Jake, please. I am really tired of the "hey, we're only volunteers, it takes a lot of time to do these things." argument. If you're not willing to accept the responsibility of the job, which includes how much effort you need to put out, don't volunteer. It's that simple. I've dealt w/ the same thing in many of the volunteer organizations that I've been a part of. We had people on the FD that only wanted to go to working calls, they didn't want to come to work details, they didn't want to go to the activated alarms in the middle of the night, they didn't want to work fund raisers, etc., etc., etc. And the excuse that you always heard, was that "Hey, it's a volunteer position.". Just because it's a volunteer position doesn't mean you can pick and choose what you want to do. If you can't meet the requirements of the position, don't volunteer. But more importantly, don't use the fact that it's a volunteer position to justify why you can't do the job correctly.

[lateapex911]

Is that good enough for you Jake?




And Jake, please. I am really tired of the "hey, we're only volunteers, it takes a lot of time to do these things." argument. If you're not willing to accept the responsibility of the job, which includes how much effort you need to put out, don't volunteer. It's that simple. I've dealt w/ the same thing in many of the volunteer organizations that I've been a part of. We had people on the FD that only wanted to go to working calls, they didn't want to come to work details, they didn't want to go to the activated alarms in the middle of the night, they didn't want to work fund raisers, etc., etc., etc. And the excuse that you always heard, was that "Hey, it's a volunteer position.". Just because it's a volunteer position doesn't mean you can pick and choose what you want to do. If you can't meet the requirements of the position, don't volunteer. But more importantly, don't use the fact that it's a volunteer position to justify why you can't do the job correctly.

Bill, honestly, fry me on a stick for this...whatever.

The real world happens to revolve around lives and balance. Yes, it IS hard to find NINE freaken guys who have wives and jobs and family that will sit and debate this stuff for 8 hours on the phone for months on end. Sorry, but that the way it is. And don't shoot this at me...my con call attendance and contributions are top of the charts.

And I know for sure that back in the day when this was all coming down, you, among others, cried for something to adjust and get close. It was never decreed as perfect...and we always said we'd take it by stages, and that 90% of the problem existed in 10% of the cars.

Yes, it's a volunteer organization, and with that come balances. So be it.