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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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)

[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

[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?

[Greg Amy]

- I want to TRY and get each car 'correct'

The real "root issue" here is that there is a difference in philosophy, a difference in what one defines as "correct". I'm not necessarily impugning or attacking that difference, I'm simply pointing it out.

I want a fully objective mathematical system, free of human frailties and political tinkering. While I may have faith in the current ITAC members to not let their biases and opinions interfere, I do not have that faith for the future. I am promoting an even classification in advance, ignoring the on-track results.

Andy defines "correct" as a desired end result, where the list of "competitive" vehicles is long, broad, and any one of these cars could win on any particular weekend. Andy is, by any others means, promoting an even on-track result.

I personally do not believe that Andy's goal is realistically possible without a LOT of tinkering, both in advance and arrears, and not without a massive amount of seriously transparent work. I know Andy thinks the ITAC can do it, but I - truly respectfully - disagree.

I think using a 100% repeatable formula will result in a serious overdog in every class

So do I. At which point we say, "sorry, it's up a class you go." I'd much sooner tell a 1960-pound CRX to change the "A" to an "S" long before I'd face the population saying that I and my peers are spending a lot of subjective energy trying to make everyone "correct".

so what matters here? holding to some philosophy which not everyone agrees on, or actually getting the CARS ON TRACK within the performance window?

Fine, Travis, if that's what you want, then let's call a spade a spade and put in full-up COMPETITION ADJUSTMENTS, most certainly based on on-track performance. Because that's what you're promoting!

If you want competitive parity, then let's drop the facade of 'no competition adjustments' and do it right, with such things as lead trophies, annual weight adjustments and single-inlet restrictors.

If you're goal of "correctness" is to have even on-track parity, then let's do it "correctly" instead of pretending we're not. 'Cause what you're doing now with your subjective pre-adjustments is nothing but competition adjustments with a set of frilly pink panties to look good... - GA

[tnord]

So do I. At which point we say, "sorry, it's up a class you go." I'd much sooner tell a 1960-pound CRX to change the "A" to an "S" long before I'd face the population saying that I and my peers are spending a lot of subjective energy trying to make everyone "correct".

so then what? you move a 1960lb car up a class, re-run it through the 100% repeatable, objective, rigid process, reclass it at 1660lbs, which nobody can reach, and you massively piss off a core group because you just made them uncompetitive. OR, you move a 2750lb car up a class, which gets spit back out at 2450 through your still unflexible process, and now it's an overdog in the next class up?

Fine, Travis, if that's what you want, then let's call a spade a spade and put in full-up COMPETITION ADJUSTMENTS, most certainly based on on-track performance. Because that's what you're promoting!

If you want competitive parity, then let's drop the facade of 'no competition adjustments' and do it right, with such things as lead trophies, annual weight adjustments and single-inlet restrictors.

If you're goal of "correctness" is to have even on-track parity, then let's do it "correctly" instead of pretending we're not. 'Cause what you're doing now with your subjective pre-adjustments is nothing but competition adjustments with a set of frilly pink panties to look good... - GA

call it competition adjustments if you want, i don't care. but there's a big difference between using the most objective, best information available to make a best effort attempt at getting a car within the WINDOW and throwing around 25lbs of lead because somebody won the ARRC & IT Fest.

you're not going to get rid of subjectivity in any class and have parity. fuck, parity doesn't even exist in anything but stuff like SRF. MY goal for IT is NOT to have perfect parity, because that objective absolutely does drive you towards BS like results based adjustments. you just make the best attempt at it you can, and if a mistake is made, i sure want the ability to go back and fix a class-destroying car.

[jjjanos]

I want a fully objective mathematical system, free of human frailties and political tinkering.

will create an overdog

At which point we say, "sorry, it's up a class you go."

Sorry, that's contradictory. You no longer have a fully objective mathematical system the moment you move a car that is an overdog.

If the process is a FOMS, then what you have is a process that takes inputs and determines the class/weight of the car and there it sits. If the process says that a Toyota Gofast's minimum weight is 200 pounds, then reliance on a FOMS says the weight gets set at 200 pounds, period.

In the above, the FOMS clearly has problems and that would suggest recalibrating and estimating the parameters and model without the use of a Gofast specific adder. I.e. The reason WHY the Gofast doesn't fit needs to be added to the FOMS.

What you are suggesting is a FOMS unless "we" don't like/believe the outcome... and that's pretty much what we have now. (Except we only use it for overdogs. Classified underdogs just die stillborn.)

[JeffYoung]

On edit -- and Kirk, thanks for that first post. We haven't had a good IT centric discussion here in a long time. It was needed.

Given the full range of marques and factors involved it is simply not possible to have a system entirely devoid of subjectivity. As Andy and others have pointed out, the result you get is a prevalence of overdogs. There is no way, for example, to apply a IT prep horsepower number "across the board" to all cars. It's just not possible.

Moving cars up and down isn't the answer either. That in and of itself requires subjectivity. Is the 1980 lb process weight CRX "too fast" for A? Will it be unacheivably light in S? etc. etc. etc. etc.

The trick is to only inject subjectivity in the process where necessary, and as a last resort. "Where necessary" becomes a function of making sure good people get put on the ITAC. That's what we can control, and what we should focus on. We have a workable process in place that the "real world" data has shown has made a lot of chassis competitive in S and A when that was not the case before. Keep putting good people on the ITAC and hope for the best. That is all we can do.