Need help understanding VW classifications

[Andy Bettencourt]

As it stands right now, there has been no 'sharpening of any pencils'. If someone writes in and asks for a re-evaluation, here is a real-world example of what to expect:

Porshe 924 in ITB. 2600lbs currently. Process weight with subjective adders is 2495. Because this is more than 100lbs outside the current weight, it gets corrected. If it was 75lbs, it would have stayed put at 2600.

Now, the philisophical question comes into play. If it was 75lbs, and we did the work, do we reset the weight? Currently we do not. Couple reasons why.

First, if we did, we would get a flood of letters in asking for an evaluation. This stuff just can't get done expeditiously. If you knew how much time we spend on each car, you would be shocked. It's about sorting out 7 or 8 different opinions and coming to a consensus.

Second, the difference in driver ability, prep level, chassis dynamic, tire choice, etc, etc, etc. is so great that we think there is obviously some room for error here. What is that 'figure', currently +/- 100 lbs. I am sure the +/- 50lbs is a simple 'loss in translation'.

Is 100lbs right? Heck, I would love to have every car right on the 'process' but if you knew how much effort is put into each car (I am sure Kirk laughs at the debates) it would take us prohibitively long to do so. It would be MUCH easier to use Jake's (racerjake) spreadsheet to tighten up the value than it would be to run everyone.

The question for ya'll is what is the number (or percentage) that is reasonable to 'err' with given what we are. And understanding what we 'are' is key.

[Bill Miller]

As it stands right now, there has been no 'sharpening of any pencils'. If someone writes in and asks for a re-evaluation, here is a real-world example of what to expect:

Porshe 924 in ITB. 2600lbs currently. Process weight with subjective adders is 2495. Because this is more than 100lbs outside the current weight, it gets corrected. If it was 75lbs, it would have stayed put at 2600.

Now, the philisophical question comes into play. If it was 75lbs, and we did the work, do we reset the weight? Currently we do not. Couple reasons why.

First, if we did, we would get a flood of letters in asking for an evaluation. This stuff just can't get done expeditiously. If you knew how much time we spend on each car, you would be shocked. It's about sorting out 7 or 8 different opinions and coming to a consensus.

Second, the difference in driver ability, prep level, chassis dynamic, tire choice, etc, etc, etc. is so great that we think there is obviously some room for error here. What is that 'figure', currently +/- 100 lbs. I am sure the +/- 50lbs is a simple 'loss in translation'.

Is 100lbs right? Heck, I would love to have every car right on the 'process' but if you knew how much effort is put into each car (I am sure Kirk laughs at the debates) it would take us prohibitively long to do so. It would be MUCH easier to use Jake's (racerjake) spreadsheet to tighten up the value than it would be to run everyone.

The question for ya'll is what is the number (or percentage) that is reasonable to 'err' with given what we are. And understanding what we 'are' is key.

Andy,

You had the perfect opportunity to reset all the weights during the 'great realignment'. No flood of letters asking for evaluations, just a simple "Here's what this predominantly objective process that we use says that this car should weigh." Use the 'close enough' to handle cases where it would have bumped a car to a different cage 'bucket', if it was that close.

Anyway, the whole reason for my previous post was a response to this.

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.

That's coming from another member of the ITAC. Your position seems to be significantly different than Jake's. You guys have both been at this for a while now, I find this apparent lack of communication to be disconcerting.

And Jake, just stop it. You asked me to quote posts because you thought you were going to catch me in something and that I wouldn't be able to find any posts to support my claim. So don't try to make it look like I'm trying to roast you. You tried to pull something and got caught. Man up and deal w/ it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

While I haven't spoken to Jake on the subject specifically, I am sure it's just a misunderstanding of the definaition.

As far as resetting the weights, I will disagree on the 'ease' of the task. We COULD have, yes. But the amount of work is monumental. If it were a formula, it would be no problem - but since each car is addressed WRT it's potential adders, it becomes VERY cumbersome. We looked at each of the cars outside of the 100lb window and rest 30+ of them. If we used 50lbs, it would have been 100+ I am sure. If we used 25lbs, I bet it would have been 300+ cars. And again, it's just not a plug-and-play situation. This crap takes time. LOTS of time. 300+ is unmanagable IMHO. (Roungh estimate has the ITCS classing 340+ cars)

The issue becomes one of what is 'right' and/or what is 'acceptable' in IT for this 'slop'. If you are saying that this will never be good enough until each and every car has been reset onto it's perfect target number, then I accept that. I just don't think it's possible in a short (reasonable) period of time.

[Eagle7]

This is driving me nuts. I've had a lot of confidence in "the process" and the grand realignment, but this discussion doesn't jive with my assumptions. Sounds like we've got a gang of cowboys shootin' from the hip. I've learned:

• The "process" can't be written down, but after a 15 minute "discussion", I might "get it". If you can't write it down it isn't a process.
• The ITAC spends hours debating an individual car before they can agree on the outcome of the process. Previously we were told we could ask any ITAC member about any car and would get the same answer because they understand the process.
• We didn't write down the rationalle for setting the weight of the cars that were evaluated. So I guess we can't determine how a car's weight was set.
• Different ITAC members have different understandings about how the process is applied - 50# vs 100#.
• Publicizing the process and the factors for each car would cause a great commotion. Well, based on the prior points I can see why. There is a great deal of value in public review of things of this nature. It won't be improved if it remains a mystery.

Guys, I'm concerned. I think we've got a ways to go before "the process" will pass muster.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

While I haven't spoken to Jake on the subject specifically, I am sure it's just a misunderstanding of the definaition.

As far as resetting the weights, I will disagree on the 'ease' of the task. We COULD have, yes. But the amount of work is monumental. If it were a formula, it would be no problem - but since each car is addressed WRT it's potential adders, it becomes VERY cumbersome. We looked at each of the cars outside of the 100lb window and rest 30+ of them. If we used 50lbs, it would have been 100+ I am sure. If we used 25lbs, I bet it would have been 300+ cars. And again, it's just not a plug-and-play situation. This crap takes time. LOTS of time. 300+ is unmanagable IMHO. (Roungh estimate has the ITCS classing 340+ cars)

The issue becomes one of what is 'right' and/or what is 'acceptable' in IT for this 'slop'. If you are saying that this will never be good enough until each and every car has been reset onto it's perfect target number, then I accept that. I just don't think it's possible in a short (reasonable) period of time.

I guess that's where I didn't understand how the process worked w.r.t. the GR (Great Realignment). I figured that you had already gone through the process for each car (with the understanding that some cars just didn't get looked at because they really aren't raced). I thought that meant that all the 'adders' were examined for those cars that were run through the process. Isn't that how the process weight was determined, so that you could determine if the current (at the time) spec weight was w/in that 100# window?

I'm just trying to understand this. I thought I did before, but now I'm not so sure. I'm not trying to over-simplify this, but I am having a hard time understanding that if you looked at the numbers to see if they were w/in the window, why would they need to be re-visited or re-generated if you were going to actually adjust the weight of the car?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I guess that's where I didn't understand how the process worked w.r.t. the GR (Great Realignment). I figured that you had already gone through the process for each car (with the understanding that some cars just didn't get looked at because they really aren't raced). I thought that meant that all the 'adders' were examined for those cars that were run through the process. Isn't that how the process weight was determined, so that you could determine if the current (at the time) spec weight was w/in that 100# window?

I'm just trying to understand this. I thought I did before, but now I'm not so sure. I'm not trying to over-simplify this, but I am having a hard time understanding that if you looked at the numbers to see if they were w/in the window, why would they need to be re-visited or re-generated if you were going to actually adjust the weight of the car?

I get what you are asking. You are asumming that each car went through the whole process. What happened was that each car was taken through the 'formula' portion (via spreadsheet) and any that were outside the 100lbs got seperated into another group for a much better scrub down. You guys have to remember that when this happened all of this thinking was very radical for IT so anything too 'minute' was going to really make the BoD think twice about allowing us to move forward.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is driving me nuts. I've had a lot of confidence in "the process" and the grand realignment, but this discussion doesn't jive with my assumptions. Sounds like we've got a gang of cowboys shootin' from the hip. I've learned:

• The "process" can't be written down, but after a 15 minute "discussion", I might "get it". If you can't write it down it isn't a process.
• The ITAC spends hours debating an individual car before they can agree on the outcome of the process. Previously we were told we could ask any ITAC member about any car and would get the same answer because they understand the process.
• We didn't write down the rationalle for setting the weight of the cars that were evaluated. So I guess we can't determine how a car's weight was set.
• Different ITAC members have different understandings about how the process is applied - 50# vs 100#.
• Publicizing the process and the factors for each car would cause a great commotion. Well, based on the prior points I can see why. There is a great deal of value in public review of things of this nature. It won't be improved if it remains a mystery.

Guys, I'm concerned. I think we've got a ways to go before "the process" will pass muster.

The process is written down. It's part formula and part guidelines for subjective adders. The issues is that when you just 'read' it, the guidelines are all there but you start thinking about what got what, when and why. Stuff that can be easily explained in a conversation but is also hard to go back and forth about via the web or e-mail just ny the nature of debate, explanation and tone. (edit #2: The 100lb 'bar' is not part of the written process upon inspection. I will fix that today)

It's not about hours for each car. Some cars take a few monutes, some take much longer. Just because it make take a while doesn't mean, in the end, everyone isn't on the same page and can explain the thought process and rationale.

I can go back and run the process for any car and tell you why the weight was set as such. (edit: We have started documenting the methodology for each car changed to provide historical record)

Just because Jake is misunderstanding the 100/50lb thing doesn't mean the sky is falling. It is actually 'excersized' so rarely that I can see how it never solidified, but I will take responsibility for that.

The architecture for the process has been explain in detail on the site many times yet people still think it is some secret. The propblem remains that there are tons of 'debateable' factors in each classification, so when 100 people want to debate given their own circumstance, it becomes counter-productive IMHO.

Like I said, I am always happy to explain in person or on the phone but the typing back and forth is just a waste of time. Look at how this BB works as an example.

[Greg Amy]

Allow me to jump in here and drop an opinion in regard to the 100/50# thing.

Andy (and ITAC et al), I have differences in opinion on the 100/50# thing, on two basic counts:

One, when you allow +/-100 pounds (or whatever), you have a very real risk of two cars in the same class being separated by 200# (one is -100, one is +100). While you may discard a difference of 100#, it's really hard to ignore the possibility of twice that.

Two, if you've gone to all the trouble of working out the classification weight of a particular car, and it's different than the current one WHY NOT change it? I mean, even if it's only 2 pounds (to offer an extreme example), what's the downside to recommending it to the CRB and having it implemented? The investigation and work is already done, so publish the sucker! I sincerely don't see a problem with minor adjustments, and you completely eliminate arguments/discussions such as this.

Convince me otherwise, but it sure seems like a lot LESS work to simply move forward with these requests...it's almost like you spend more time trying to avoid re-weights rather than lean towards parity for all cars...which ends up causing more work (see post counts above and sideways on this issue..)

GA

[Knestis]

I'd propose that before anyone gets sideways about how the process works, they clarify their own personal philosophy about what it should accomplish. Broadly speaking, you have two options that define ends of the current philosophical spectrum with respect to IT cars:

1. Have a rock-solid quantitative "formula" (and I'll use that word purposefully) for which anyone could plug numbers into a spreadsheet and have the race weight pop out the other end. This approach provides repeatability and transparency.

2. Have a "process" (a different word, for clarity) that adds to the above factors including IT-prep power gain, and adders/subtractors for other attributes. Importantly, while the factors are quantifiable, they are determined qualitatively by human beings with different perceptions. This approach comes closer to "getting it right" for every make/model listed.

Your choice depends on a lot of things, probably.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Deleted because I like Kirk's better....

[Greg Amy]

Deleted because I like Kirk's better....

OK, so instead of answering you want us to defend the question? Sorry, I'm not playing that game. If that's how you want to play, you're on your own with the crowd...and expect them to become a lot more riled up...

Out.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

Mine was just a specific rebuttle to your points. We all can continue to go back and forth on individual issues forever. What I agree we need to do is define our fundamental base position and move forward from there. What I often see from you is bashing of specifc points yet no solutions or specific opinions of your own. I ask you a 'king for a day' question and you respond with 4 different answers that never puts YOUR opinion out there for examination.

If you were on the ITAC, how would YOU do it? Put something out there.

[Knestis]

...and if I WERE King Kirk, I'd opt for Option 1. I think that predictable and defensible trumps "right" - for exactly the reason illustrated by folks here being upset/worried about what's going on.

HOWEVER, by doing that I give up all rights to complain if that formula spits out a race weight that becomes problematic for me. From conversations with him on the subject, I think Greg falls philosophically on the same end of the spectrum as I do, but there are other perspectives on the ITAC, held by racers who think we can "get closer" to being "right" by using subjective considerations.

I wasn't responding to Greg's question - he beat me to the click. But for what it's worth, every request that has come in for re-examination or initial classification since i started has moved through the process, accepting that some are tabled pending additional information being made available. I'd submit that it IS a potential problem, that we can get very bogged down (again, trying to do the right thing) during this part of the process. For example, the MR2 classification still hinges on whether it can make it's current ITA weight, and we have compelling evidence suggesting it can. And that it can't.

>> ... if you've gone to all the trouble of working out the classification weight of a particular car, and it's different than the current one WHY NOT change it? I mean, even if it's only 2 pounds (to offer an extreme example), what's the downside to recommending it to the CRB and having it implemented?

Philosophically, I agree. However, the "confidence interval" of the current process isn't that narrow. Proposing a 10# change when the current process has room for more than that many pounds of subjectivity involved isn't sound practice. If Hil's leading Obama in the polls by 2 points and the methodology is good to +/- 3%, she's not "winning."

Which brings me back to my question and our assumptions/values/etc. Greg's question stands because he would apply a "formula" approach rather than a "system" approach. If a huge majority of the membership feel the same way, it makes the process a lot easier and provides certainty. But there's a price to be paid for that.

K

[shwah]

OK so correct me if I have this wrong. All cars were not run through the process during the great realignment. Cars that are raced were dropped into the formula, and if over 100# off were run through the process.

If that is accurate - then we don't really know if the cars that were not adjusted are within 100# of process weight or not. Even though many of us thought this for the last several years.

IMO all the active cars that were not adjusted (and those that were not adjusted because they went through the process and came up between 50 and 99# off) should be run through the whole process, and a 50# or greater variation should be corrected.

As an aside, it is often stated that a given weight difference is too small to make a difference because the average IT driver isn't consistent enough, or prep level can more than account for that difference. OK - so what happens when two equally average (or god forbid good) drivers show up in equally well prepped (or equally poorly prepped) cars? I'm sorry but at some points that weight makes a difference in the performance of the cars, whether we are talking about Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Massa or Chris Schaafsma and Dave Gran. If it didn't matter, then we wouldn't have spec weights.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Slight clarification Chris:

All the cars were dropped into the formula. Most that were over 100lbs were sent to a secondary group for scrub-down and subjective adder consideration. SOME cars that were over 100lbs off were not included in the scrub-down because there was not enough information and no desire to race these cars - or the numbers had scary implications.

A prime example is the 2810 lb 3.8L Chevy Monza in ITA. That car has 110 stock hp. We were/are afraid of how that motor wakes up in IT trim once to get all the smog crap off of it and throw some go-fast bits on it (see TR8 HP in ITS). By formula, it's around a 2340lb ITB car...so the decision was made (and some like it) to leave it alone until someone who actually wanted to race one asks us to do some more research (hopefully with their help) and apply the full process. Cars like this are the kind that got 'left-out'. You can assume most every car anyone would seriously consider racing had a serious look.

[Bill Miller]

power to weight look w/o any consideration given to 'adders'?
kirjk, i think the only thing that can't be plugged into the formula is the deviation from a 25% gain in IT trim. everything else is just a check box. one other comment, should adders be a percentage rather than a fixed amount? see my earlier comment about percentage

[shwah]

Slight clarification Chris:

All the cars were dropped into the formula. Most that were over 100lbs were sent to a secondary group for scrub-down and subjective adder consideration. SOME cars that were over 100lbs off were not included in the scrub-down because there was not enough information and no desire to race these cars - or the numbers had scary implications.

Were the ones that were less than 100# off in the raw formula given any additional consideration? If no, I think they should be. It is not a small task, but the right thing to do would be to set up a plan to review to confirm or correct a certain number of cars per quarter, until they are all up to date. Of course keeping records of the process so that it does not have to be started from scratch when a future letter is written.

You can assume most every car anyone would seriously consider racing had a serious look.

It sounds like this is the case IF it fell 100# outside the straight formula. If not - it may in fact be over 100# off process, but was never fully reviewed.

[MMiskoe]

Kirk - your option 2 is a more realisict approach. There are too many subtle differences that won't allow a plug & chug equation to spit out a weight. However, publishing a weight w/ no back up for how it was arrived at just creates questions. Publishing the details will let those on the outside looking in gain some trust on how the weight was decided (provided there is some logic and consistancy applied to the various parts that are not concrete). Plus it will save several posts here asking what parameters were used.

The process is written down. It's part formula and part guidelines for subjective adders. The issues is that when you just 'read' it, the guidelines are all there but you start thinking about what got what, when and why. Stuff that can be easily explained in a conversation but is also hard to go back and forth about via the web or e-mail just ny the nature of debate, explanation and tone.

I got the part that it includes some subjective portions, that is understood. But where is it written down? Don't tell me on this board. Us kids on this board are no better than on the playgroud at recess. What counts is what is published in the FT and subsequently in the GCR. Stuff written here doesn't bear any weight. Besides if it is on this board somewhere (provide link please) is an unrealistic approach. Can you honestly expect someone to sifting through every thread that will show up when you do a search on the word "process"?


Matt

[Bill Miller]

And just to clarify, I have never nor will I ever advocate for an absolute formula. I'm not naive enough to think that you can get it that close, or that right. Refine the model as more data are gathered (e.g. does it make more sense to use a percentage for adders than a fixed value?). And make case-by-case tweaks (not gonna use the "A" word!) when it's appropriate (e.g. Vtec, etc.).

And maybe it needs to be refined even further. I'm not so sure that being a FWD strut car makes as much of a difference in ITC or ITB as it does in ITS or ITR. They way the 'adders' are factored in, and exactly what value, and how it is determined, may vary from class to class.

I think back to when we worked on the ITR project. I don't remember much gnashing of teeth or painfully long discussion about what the cars should weigh. We defined a target ratio, assigned values to the 'adders' (most of which came from the ITAC classification process) and started running the cars through. Jeff and Ron did a fair amount of the heavy lifting vis-a-vis putting the data all together (and forgive me if I forgot someone), but I'm sure they'll tell you that it wasn't that painful.

[Knestis]

LOL - Maybe we should enlist you, Bill to resolve the question of the V8 Camaros and Mustangs in ITR, then. No gnashing!

Using the current process would be a snap if one could convene a subcommittee of five guys, all with the same mindset, priorities, assumptions, and beliefs. The problem is that everyone would be PO'd about any given decision, except for people who benefit from it. An SCCA Ad Hoc committee is made up of a broader slice of the membership and we strive for consensus. Scott Giles will tell you that the best thing about SCCA - and maybe the worst thing - is that rules changes are hard...

K