So, what TRULY matters...?

[Knestis]

Some of my ITAC colleagues disagreed with me this evening, when I expressed the position that "the membership" (that's you all, plus those who don't visit this board) believes the following first principles are most important, where IT classification and specification decisions are concerned:

Repeatability - If we repeat the process on the same car at different times, we get the same weight specification.

Consistency - Different cars with the same characteristics are in the same class at the same weight; weights differ predictably as do specifications used in the process (e.g., stock power).

Transparency - You understand the processes being used and trust that they're being applied without bias.

How close am I...? What did I leave out, if anything?

K

[JeffYoung]

I think that all three of those are very important. I'm a bit scairt that some disagreed with you on them......

A few others:

Big ones.

Hands Offability/Stability. The Rules and processes we adopt do not require constant tweaking and arguing, can be "set" in place without change for long periods of time.

Relevancy. I suppose this is another "anti-prod" characteristic. Without disrupting your three points, and mine above, we ensure that classed cars are newish, moderish and attractive to those looking to get into racing.

Minor ones.

Accessibility. It is easy to find out who is responsible for what and easy to contact/discuss with them. Unfortunately for you guys on the ITAC, we have that now in spades!

Leadership culture"ness." We work to ensure that the guys (and women) who we put in leadership positions have a sense of humor and perspective. This is CLUB racing, should be fun, and life or death arguments and insult hurling shouldn't be a part of how we decide the direction of IT racing. Small point I guess, but important to me anyway.

[MMiskoe]

I might change the wording of Transparancy to the process being done under full disclosure.

My long standing gripe is that getting the details of the process, or any particular car is like pulling teeth. If it is going to be used, It should be written down and published, like all the other rules we work with. Yes there will be an onslaught of requests that say "I don't think you assessed my car correctly, the nitrous fogger really only adds 3hp". But so be it.

[Eagle7]

Some of my ITAC colleagues disagreed with me this evening, when I expressed the position that "the membership" (that's you all, plus those who don't visit this board) believes the following first principles are most important, where IT classification and specification decisions are concerned:

Repeatability - If we repeat the process on the same car at different times, we get the same weight specification.

Consistency - Different cars with the same characteristics are in the same class at the same weight; weights differ predictably as do specifications used in the process (e.g., stock power).

Transparency - You understand the processes being used and trust that they're being applied without bias.

How close am I...? What did I leave out, if anything?

K

[dickita15]

Kirk,
What you outline above seems self evident to anyone who wants to “trust the process”. I am actually having a hard time envisioning the argument against unless it is just that we (the membership) do not care about process, just the outcome.

[Greg Amy]

Kirk,
What you outline above seems self evident to anyone who wants to “trust the process”. I am actually having a hard time envisioning the argument against unless it is just that we (the membership) do not care about process, just the outcome.

+1.

Before I wholly agree, though, I'd like to hear the counter arguments...

[ddewhurst]

***Consistency - Different cars with the same characteristics are in the same class at the same weight; weights differ predictably as do specifications used in the process (e.g., stock power).***

I do not question the two other principles. The above principle would depend on how close "same characteristics" are.

Example: There are three Miata's classed supposedly weighted to parity within Spec Miata except few agree there is parity.

[Knestis]

Some ITAC'ers had other priorities that they thought trumped the three I listed but I don't have a firm enough grasp on what they were explaining to be sure about describing it here. I'm pretty confident that it went to Jeff's "Hands Offability/Stability," though.

Note here however that I'm specifically talking about placing cars in classes and determining what they should weigh - not about changes allowed by the rules.

K

[Knestis]

...Example: There are three Miata's classed supposedly weighted to parity within Spec Miata except few agree there is parity.

Point taken. The problem is that "parity" on the race track (and/or perceptions thereof) is an outcome. If we start adjusting the specification process or numbers applied in specific cases in order to reach particular outcomes - most especially PERCEPTIONS of competitiveness - then we've jumped straight to competition adjustments (bleah!), which we are pretty confident you do NOT want.

K

[gran racing]

I'd take the stability one step further. You guys have defined what the various class targets are - those should remain the same even if it eventually means classes die.

I would be curious to hear what the other ITAC opinions are.

[lateapex911]

Some of my ITAC colleagues disagreed with me this evening, when I expressed the position that "the membership" (that's you all, plus those who don't visit this board) believes the following first principles are most important, where IT classification and specification decisions are concerned:



K

Allow me to attempt to shed some light.... [reporter mode]

If I heard it correctly, it's about where the line gets drawn with regards to subjectivity.

I think the "sticky" point comes into play when there are cars that don't fit the process. Sometimes things that we know, or suspect strongly can cause cars to be classed in ways that can be considered "incorrect".

For example: The Showda Motor Company has a car that is popular and up for classification, but the ITAC has multiple reports that the HP rating from the factory is suspect. Aftermarket suppliers have reported that stock wheel HP is lower than what it should be by 20HP or so.

The process uses stock hp. What should the ITAC do?

Reverse the example: The Hideon Corporations model up for classification seems to make incredible power in IT like builds, and market speculation is that this is likely due to the company being very conservative with it's stock HP rating. Using the stock rating will result in a misclass.

What should the ITAC do?

Sometimes it's hard to understand who is saying what on con calls, due to people talking over one another (unintentionally,of course), and bad audio, etc...........but, I think I heard some opinions stated that certain ITAC members think that the membership wants the cars classed correctly.....that the ITAC should use it's "inside" knowledge to "adjust" for suspect stock HP ratings.

(Now, keep in mind that those are just two of many examples. Another might be when a car that uses the same ...or similar engine as another car already classed that is a known overachiever comes up...does that car get "tweaked" or let fly with standard adjustments, risking an overdog?)

Again, certain members, if I heard correctly, feel the membership desires that the ITAC "gets the cars right"....as the first and overriding principle....and that the method takes a secondary role. (Other ITAC members feel that each member has, as his first principal, that his car be treated most "fairly", and all the other cars be given a conservative and strict weight, ...(LOL?)...a position that probably holds at least some water, if the letters we get are an indication.)

[/reporter mode]

I will admit, the first item above is where it can get tricky.....and I have my personal 'standards', which I think are closer to following the principles listed above, but, I do see the need to somehow account for exceptions that arise.

Kirk, by ALL means, correct me if I'm mis representing what you heard.

[seckerich]

The three points you mention are a big part of the increase in participation in IT over the past few years. Point 4 should be a reality check. Does the car we just ran through the "process" make sense? No process is 100% and it will always have some common sense or knowledge based input. Big problem is that the percentage you are off is magnified as the HP goes up. 2-5% in ITC is nothing compared to the same error in ITS or ITR. If very popular cars are not getting built you need to see point number 4. On edit after seeing Jakes post. Yes, you should use known information in classing. That is what the multiplier is for and was used for many cars classed now and is correct. Factory HP numbers are for marketing or insurance companies. Many are very suspect. Go back and run ITS through the process at 25% and you have a one car class. You guys are on the ITAC because you either have the knowledge or can find it from reliable sources. In the end we go home if you stick to some high and mighty morals in the "process" and the racing sucks.

[spawpoet]

Note here however that I'm specifically talking about placing cars in classes and determining what they should weigh - not about changes allowed by the rules.

K

If this is your end goal, then it sounds to me like your Repatability and Jeffs (and your fellow ITAC'ers) Hands-Offability/Stability both address this end equally. If the process is repeatable over time that would be stable. FWIW I think you guys do a good job. The OVERALL parity in IT is excellent. A damn fine job of cat herding sir. And as Jeff noted this IS club racing. Some people take it all a little too seriously....it's supposed to be fun.

chris

[tnord]

the NEED to get cars right is where it gets ugly. i certainly can't disagree with Kirk's three principles, but they all get muddled when dealing with a car where the math doesn't add up. situations like the BMW in ITS, CRX in ITA, and RX-8 in ITR will certainly create conflict amongst everyone, and understandably so. in order to get these cars "right" the three ideals must be compromised, which i'm guessing some are not willing to do in any case. but i think you have to.

stuff like the ITS BMW's can single handedly ruin a class, and must be avoided. so if you *knew* that situation were about to happen if you classed a certain car at it's process weight, what should you do? not class it at all? leave it an overdog? or do you gather and use the best information you can get to try and "get it right?"

i think you try and get it right, though i'm sure others will disagree. and even those that agree you should do this, will disagree on the methodology and numbers used to do so.

[Knestis]

Jake describes another priority that I didn't feel entirely able to treat accurately - mostly (I confess) because I personally don't agree that it's a priority that outweighs the others: That being what he described as "getting it right." Ultimately it comes down to...

Would you rather have a more repeatable, consistent process that potentially leaves some cars with "real world" performance differences that we can't account for, or a more subjective process that tries to "get them right?"

Understand that we're talking pretty narrow degress of difference here. As has been pointed out, we aren't completely bustified. And this is largely an issue of perceptions - comfort, fairness, etc. I continue to be VERY confident that the differences in actual competitiveness imposed by driving skill, budget, and development effort far outweigh the variance imposed by the make/model chosen or the "accuracy" of the race weight. (See also, "Kirk can only do a 1:50 at Rd Atl in the car that won the 2007 ARRC.")



K

EDIT - ...there's also the issue of costs associated with ANY change. That's come up in conversation here as well as in ITAC deliberations.

[gran racing]

Big problem is that the percentage you are off is magnified as the HP goes up. 2-5% in ITC is nothing compared to the same error in ITS or ITR.

Percentage wise, I guess so but at the same time a weight error of only 50 - 75 lbs hurts and ITC car more so than an ITR car.

While I like the use of a known process, I also recognize that there's a need for some subjectivety to come into play. If a car is well known to have a very low HP rating and that's truly what the ITAC believes through their research (as in your example Jake), then I don't think the ITAC should just use the published HP number.

[jjjanos]

For example: The Showda Motor Company has a car that is popular and up for classification, but the ITAC has multiple reports that the HP rating from the factory is suspect. Aftermarket suppliers have reported that stock wheel HP is lower than what it should be by 20HP or so.

The process uses stock hp. What should the ITAC do?

Depends on the objective function of the ITAC. Is it to classify the car? Is it to classify the car so that it gets raced? If the former, the ITAC shouldn't deviate from the process and the car is an enternal underdog. If it is the latter, the ITAC should use all of the available real world data on specifications (weighted for reliability) to classify the car.

Yep, that's subjective... but so is a large portion of the process. Why is the 'adder' for the plasma coil inducer +25 instead of +50? Why do certain engine types/makes get different HP multipliers?

Reverse the example: The Hideon Corporations model up for classification seems to make incredible power in IT like builds, and market speculation is that this is likely due to the company being very conservative with it's stock HP rating. Using the stock rating will result in a misclass.

What should the ITAC do?

Less harmful situation as using the process will not result in the defacto banning of the car from IT. If the strict process is used, the car will exist in that configuration for one, maybe two years before the competition adjustment... er, I mean the 3-year reclassification rule, results in moving it up a class, more weight or a restrictor. There is little lasting damage though, the car will get built.

My vote is again with using all reliability-weighted information on the vehicle in classification. Relying on published information when it is known to be wrong or heavily suspected to be wrong is foolish. What would the ITAC do if they were classifying an Avanti and Avanti themselves said - stock, this car generates 115 HP but rechipped and in IT-trim, it'll generate 230HP? Ya gonna use the published and correct stock HP to classify or are you gonna use what the car is known to produce under the rules?

[Greg Amy]

...it's about where the line gets drawn with regards to subjectivity...
...Sometimes things that we know, or suspect strongly can cause cars to be classed in ways that can be considered "incorrect"...
...What should the ITAC do...

OK, well, I think we're back to the old argument that I've had with more than one or two of the ITAC members over the years. And my position hasn't changed: pure objectivity is key, let the chips fall where they may.

ANY time you try to "adjust" the process based on "known" information, you're actually breaking the process. Why? Because you're making decisions based on what you THINK you know. Problem is, you DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS. In reality, you have very few of the facts. So, what you end up doing is chasing the outliers, when - in fact - you haven't caught the real outliers, you've only caught the outliers that weren't smart enough to play the game.

Then, you want to pretend that someone is being honest when they say they've done ALL THEY CAN DO to get xxx ponies out of an engine, and want an adjustment? Yeah, right...

So you are, in effect, making competition adjustments based on results, before there's even any results. Those initial "results" may not be on-track results, but they're results nonetheless. You're trying to pretend you're not doing comp adjustments, when you really are. And then you're not backing that up in the end.

You're trying to pretend you can predict the end results without actually correcting those mistakes that will inevitable happen.

...that certain ITAC members think that the membership wants the cars classed correctly.....that the ITAC should use it's "inside" knowledge to "adjust" for suspect stock HP ratings.

Blech, blah, ptooey!!! Honestly and frankly, guys, don't know SHIT, you only know what people choose to let you know.

Sorry, but you're not nearly as smart individually or collectively as the whole of the population you're trying to "govern". Central Planning doesn't work guys.

Plus, you won't use the intestinal fortitude to back up that Central Planning by adjusting based on on-track results...so, in effect, you're trying to govern the outcomes without actually governing the outcomes.

It. Will. Fail. Always has, always will. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

It was a long call and it got a little crazy at times but I most certainly am willing to but my nuts on the chopping block so everyone knows where I stand.

- I want to TRY and get each car 'correct'
- I understand it's actually impossible to get each cars weight correct
- I think using some subjectivity and known data to set weights is the right thing to do
- I think using a 100% repeatable formula will result in a serious overdog in every class

So I want a process that is very repeatable (knowing it may not be 100% of the time given a variety of factors) but is transparent and defendable. I HAVE to be able to look someone in the eye and tell them WHY the weight got to be what it is. I can accept we will dissagree - but I at least have to have the answers - or be able to reverse engineer the process to get to the min if the info isn't right in my brain.

I would rather think I am 'right' (CRX @ 2250 in ITA) than have it be a robot-like formula which would result in what *I* consider mistakes (like a 1960lb ITA CRX) because we used ONLY stock HP, no known data, etc.

I guess I would rather believe in what I think is right, do it with integrity, explain it to anyone who asks and feel like the category is better off for it at the end of the day - no matter who thinks I am an idiot.

(Disclaimer: being 'right' is impossible in all of this)

[tnord]

So, what you end up doing is chasing the outliers, when - in fact - you haven't caught the real outliers, you've only caught the outliers that weren't smart enough to play the game.

so what matters here? holding to some philosophy which not everyone agrees on, or actually getting the CARS ON TRACK within the performance window? if there's some car out there that will destroy everything else, but nobody races it, why does it matter? and if some guy who likes to race wallets decides to spends the time/money developing it, don't you want the flexibility outside the process to be able to reign in that example?