ITB - what a bunch of crap

[shwah]

Chris, Scott, I can't strongly disagree with what you have written. And don't, other than I just see the "running every car through the process" to be a nightmare exercise that will result in a lot of crap flinging over the subjective portions of the process. Comparing that to where we already are......I'm not sure I see the overall benefit, but at the same time, it may be necessary pain for us to go through.

This is from someone who's car will probably lose 200 lbs if the process is strictly applied to it.

At minimum I would expect every car run through the process today, whether new classification or requested review, would be classed at process weight.

I cannot for the life of me figure out what differentiates those cars from all the others in your mind though.

[JeffYoung]

Because it is easier to do. A new car is a clean slate. Run it through and class it -- that is what gets done. Can take a while (see ITR V8s) due to arguing about subjective factors though.

What I'm scairt of is trying to do this with 300 cars. At once. To me it is just as likely that in all the noise that debate will generate -- and there will be a ton of it, all kinds of "me" noise -- we are going to fark things up as much as "fix" them.

[shwah]

Because it is easier to do. A new car is a clean slate. Run it through and class it -- that is what gets done. Can take a while (see ITR V8s) due to arguing about subjective factors though.

What I'm scairt of is trying to do this with 300 cars. At once. To me it is just as likely that in all the noise that debate will generate -- and there will be a ton of it, all kinds of "me" noise -- we are going to fark things up as much as "fix" them.

Then just start with the top 5 active cars in every class.
When they are done do the next 5 active cars in every class.

Still don't see why this is as hard as you are making it out to be. The 'me' noise will be there regardless, is there now, so it is a non-factor.

You only mention new classifications here - since they do go through cars that are requested for review, why not act on those with 5# accuracy as well?

[JeffYoung]

I would say that (start with top 5 in each class) is effectively what was done, just what, 2 years ago?

Maybe it's time to move to the next five and do it as you suggest, in small steps.

It is my understanding that all new cars are not classed at a +/- 5 lbs level of accuracy, they are classed at a 100% by the process level of accuracy. To the extent an equation that has as many subjective factors as the process can be said to be 100% accurate.

I do think focusing on a few cars at a time might address my biggest concern. If we do ALL at once, we are going to make more mistakes because a lot of people are going to be arguing for expected hp gain percentages and subjective adders/subtractors solely out of self interest.

Example? Look how hard it was and how long it took to class TWO cars: the RX8 and the V8 ponies in ITR.

Then just start with the top 5 active cars in every class.
When they are done do the next 5 active cars in every class.

Still don't see why this is as hard as you are making it out to be. The 'me' noise will be there regardless, is there now, so it is a non-factor.

You only mention new classifications here - since they do go through cars that are requested for review, why not act on those with 5# accuracy as well?

[lateapex911]

It is my understanding that all new cars are not classed at a +/- 5 lbs level of accuracy, they are classed at a 100% by the process level of accuracy.

Example? Look how hard it was and how long it took to class TWO cars: the RX8 and the V8 ponies in ITR.

One, yeah, close I think we'll take a car that has a process weight of, say, 2768.4, and call it 2770. I mean, lets not get too crazy, after all.

Yea, the RX-8...I was recently talking to some people about that car. one guy told me I was an idiot, and "That's whats wrong with the SCCA" because it was too heavy. Another guy harassed me a bit and told me it was going to run roughshod all over ITR. "You watch".

I'm one of the harder working guys on the ITAC, but even I shudder to think about every car in the ITCS.

[Catch22]

Jeff,
How many V8s are actually classed in IT?
Yours and what else?

So maybe there is a V* adder that takes the TQ into account. I dunno.
But using a rare outlier as an example of how things could be dorked up is not really the way things ought to be approached IMO.

And Bob, I wouldn't hesitate to apply for that position you vacate except that my job and crazy work hours would likely make me an absent member of the committee. Don't see how that would do any good.
But I'd be glad, as I mentioned before, to do plenty of research and math. I've done it before, and I personally don't find it to be all that hard or that big of a deal.

300 cars isn't a big deal if you have 20 or 30 people doing the research. I don't see an issue getting that involvement, and multiple people have volunteered in this thread.
Yet... The "we all have day jobs" thing keeps coming up.

Take the help and get the work done, or get the work done without the help. Excuses for not doing the work are NOT serving the membership, and the main goal of the ITAC (or any committee) should be to serve the membership.

[JeffYoung]

The ITR ponies are coming.

But it's not just V8s. I see the following issues:

1. ALL low hp/high torque motors create issues with the current process. It's not just my car. 325e in ITA will be a super overdog if "processed." The 3.8 liter GM cars might. The AMC Spirit (there is actually one of those runing here in the SEDiv).

2. All of the subjective factors (torque, suspension, brakes, etc.).

3. The expected % gain in IT trim.

All issues.

I'm not opposed to doing this, I just think it needs to be done carefully or it will screw up something that, whether out of luck or planning, is pretty good right now.

I do think the RX8 and V8 pony debates should be used as case studies on how hard applying the process to a SINGLE car can be, and how much "me" noise you will get from both sides.

Jeff,
How many V8s are actually classed in IT?
Yours and what else?

So maybe there is a V* adder that takes the TQ into account. I dunno.
But using a rare outlier as an example of how things could be dorked up is not really the way things ought to be approached IMO.

And Bob, I wouldn't hesitate to apply for that position you vacate except that my job and crazy work hours would likely make me an absent member of the committee. Don't see how that would do any good.
But I'd be glad, as I mentioned before, to do plenty of research and math. I've done it before, and I personally don't find it to be all that hard or that big of a deal.

300 cars isn't a big deal if you have 20 or 30 people doing the research. I don't see an issue getting that involvement, and multiple people have volunteered in this thread.
Yet... The "we all have day jobs" thing keeps coming up.

Take the help and get the work done, or get the work done without the help. Excuses for not doing the work are NOT serving the membership, and the main goal of the ITAC (or any committee) should be to serve the membership.

[1stGenBoy]

Jeff,
How many V8s are actually classed in IT?
Yours and what else?

So maybe there is a V* adder that takes the TQ into account. I dunno.
But using a rare outlier as an example of how things could be dorked up is not really the way things ought to be approached IMO.

And Bob, I wouldn't hesitate to apply for that position you vacate except that my job and crazy work hours would likely make me an absent member of the committee. Don't see how that would do any good.
But I'd be glad, as I mentioned before, to do plenty of research and math. I've done it before, and I personally don't find it to be all that hard or that big of a deal.

300 cars isn't a big deal if you have 20 or 30 people doing the research. I don't see an issue getting that involvement, and multiple people have volunteered in this thread.
Yet... The "we all have day jobs" thing keeps coming up.

Take the help and get the work done, or get the work done without the help. Excuses for not doing the work are NOT serving the membership, and the main goal of the ITAC (or any committee) should be to serve the membership.

Scott,
You have helped the ITAC many times before and we do appreciate it. I work crazy hours too and so do many others along with racing. It just comes down to commitment and if somebody really wants to help better the club or not and if so find a way to do it. This is not an excuse on why not to run all the cars it just the facts is all. Yes 300 hundred cars is not a big deal IF all the information is avavialble!! If we have VTS sheets and the factory shop manual if makes things MUCH easier. Usually we could do 4 or 5 per call plus deal with all the other letters.
Believe me no one is not doing the work on the committee. We all spend hours every month doing research and getting feedback, posting to the ITAC site to hash out issues and preparing for our monthly conference call. I think we do a very good job of serving the members. IT is much better off than many of the other classes in SCCA. Look at all the issues in Prod,S2000,FC,SS and Sports racing. We don't have nearly any of those issues. The rules are stable. That is a Big, big plus.

Bob Clark

[shwah]

I would say that (start with top 5 in each class) is effectively what was done, just what, 2 years ago?

Maybe it's time to move to the next five and do it as you suggest, in small steps.

It is my understanding that all new cars are not classed at a +/- 5 lbs level of accuracy, they are classed at a 100% by the process level of accuracy. To the extent an equation that has as many subjective factors as the process can be said to be 100% accurate.

I do think focusing on a few cars at a time might address my biggest concern. If we do ALL at once, we are going to make more mistakes because a lot of people are going to be arguing for expected hp gain percentages and subjective adders/subtractors solely out of self interest.

Example? Look how hard it was and how long it took to class TWO cars: the RX8 and the V8 ponies in ITR.

No. They were all run through the process with a 200# window at the end. That is exactly the correction that I am suggesting, rather than trying to make the whole process more accurate (which we should continue to do), why not just throw away the added variable that only ADDS to how far off we can end up.

[JeffYoung]

Chris, that is not correct. And that's part of the problem (not pointing fingers, I'm just saying that there is a lot of incorrect information out there about what happened with the Great Realignment).

There was no "200 lb window" at the end. SOME cars that appeared to be within 100 lbs of the process weight either way were left as is, and the process was not applied to them.

We keep hearing about a "margin of error" in the process. There (supposedly) isn't one, although Scott correctly points out the math does appear wrong on a few cars. Either the car was within the 100 lb window and the process was not applied, or it was outside the window and it was and its weight corrected in accordance with the process.

No one ran the process on a car and then "fudged" the number 200 lbs either way on top of the weight the process already determined.