March 09 Fast Track

[benspeed]

Man - you guys need to get out on the track! The winter has place y'all into The Shining mode - heeeere's Jonnny!

C'mon - who wants to laugh at my goal to have a ITR Porsche on the track for under $15K????

[Andy Bettencourt]

I much preferred your initial "it's obvious you don't have a clue" one-liner post...

Me too...

[seckerich]

I wasn't lecturing you about his response, Steve - just making a general statement in response to it.

K

EDIT - ...and yes, I admit to being frustrated by some of the conversations that have happened around the RX8. That's influencing my attitude. I felt like I was (personally and as a member of the ITAC) acting in good faith, and post hoc, conversation surfaces that sounds a little like maybe I/we were getting gamed. It bothers me.

Never personal on my part big guy, we have mutual respect by now I hope. I stand by all the information I provided to the ITAC a year ago as honest and factual. Havent found anyone yet who could dispute them with proof. To be honest I see the problem more about dealing with the higher power levels of ITR in general, not just the RX8. Economy sucks too bad to care about any new car right now anyway.

Back to the thread--Build the damn BMW, it is a great ITR choice!!

[JoshS]

I only know of Buzz Marcus competing in one race with his RX-8: Homestead in June 08. He seemed to be off his game as he crashed out early however he was 4 seconds faster than the quickest ITS car and within 1/2 sec of the ITR track record. Doesn't seem like a dog to me.

Ben Robertson

Ben, where can I find a copy of the results from that weekend?

[lateapex911]

Wow.

Here's what happened. Simple facts.

-Mazda RX-8 was created. It had too much power for ITS.
-ITR was created.
-Mazda RX-8 was looking like a fit once it "aged in"
-Buzz Marcus built one for ITR, before it had been classed.
(The back story- it's a completely different rotary than those that went before it. It makes a much smaller gain in IT trim than the two previous Rotary genres. The IT classification system uses stock HP for classifications. The stock power is reported to be rated high. See the bad combo here??? )
-Buzz hoped (?) assumed(?) didn't think(?) that the car would be classed at a weight that he expected could win. (Or else why did he build it/complain post classifcation?)
-Buzz wrote in stating it was too heavy and couldn't compete in ITR, and that it be reclassed in ITS.
-His request was turned down


Listen guys.

Write in. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Think he wanted the car moved to ITS at whatever weight the same input resulted in for an ITS weight!?!?!

I've written the CRB (ITAC) with requests of my own numerous times. That's how things you see happen, happen! (My most recent was the request to move/reprocess the early Porshe 911s. It got an instant response, as all I've written in the past few years have, was entered into the system and a number was generated. Then it appeared on the ITAC board. Members asked questions, I answered, others opined, and then it got discussed on the con call, and acted on.)

If you want the car run through the process, SAY SO!!!
Is that that hard?? Just like a business letter, you need a clear definable call to action. Prove your case. ALL of us are available to help explain the limitations of the system, and how to best work with it, or advise on how best to get your request heard and approved.

But don't build an UNclassed car, then write letters telling us to move it, if thats not what you want. That's not fair to us.

[spawpoet]

Ben, where can I find a copy of the results from that weekend?

Here's the mylaps results: http://www.mylaps.com/results/showrun.jsp?id=858764

[Xian]

Listen guys.

Write in. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Think he wanted the car moved to ITS at whatever weight the same input resulted in for an ITS weight!?!?!

I've written the CRB (ITAC) with requests of my own numerous times. That's how things you see happen, happen! (My most recent was the request to move/reprocess the early Porshe 911s. It got an instant response, as all I've written in the past few years have, was entered into the system and a number was generated. Then it appeared on the ITAC board. Members asked questions, I answered, others opined, and then it got discussed on the con call, and acted on.)

If you want the car run through the process, SAY SO!!!
Is that that hard?? Just like a business letter, you need a clear definable call to action. Prove your case. ALL of us are available to help explain the limitations of the system, and how to best work with it, or advise on how best to get your request heard and approved.

But don't build an UNclassed car, then write letters telling us to move it, if thats not what you want. That's not fair to us.

Quoted for the truthiness in it. When I wanted to build my EX, the first thing I did was email the CRB and submit all the docs needed to get it classed. Once I found out how and when it was going to be classed, then I started pulling together everything for the build. No sense putting the cart before the horse and then complaining how tough things are.

Christian

[Knestis]

Here's the mylaps results: http://www.mylaps.com/results/showrun.jsp?id=858764

I'm less interested in the lap times than I am in the fact that he didn't run ITR. Odd.

K

[seckerich]

Not odd. It was not an ITR car until Jan 09. He ran the car in a catch all class. It was also running about 250# light and with RR shocks. It was basically Grand Am trim. As usual Ben has half the facts and all the knowledge.:eek: Plus when did we start using on track results and new track records for a comp comparison? Lets stick with real numbers.

[Greg Amy]

But don't build an UNclassed car, then write letters telling us to move it, if thats not what you want. That's not fair to us.

No sense putting the cart before the horse and then complaining how tough things are.

In the blowback from the Bettencourt rant, I think you guys missed my original point.

Both of you, how is this any different in the end? What is the significance of "unclassed" (or "not classed prior"?) Would it have been better to wait until January 1st 2009, after the car was officially classed, to spend the money and begin to build a full-up effort, only to end up at the same place we are now, but a year later? Or, how about if the guy had hidden it in a garage somewhere, not told anyone about it, then not brought it out until the first Regional in Florida last month, then started complaining about it this year instead of last?

In the end, the only difference is that we're having this conversation one year earlier. Why is that a problem?

And that's my point: it's been this forum's (and the ITAC's) position that if you disagree with a classification, until you "build it" to prove otherwise you've got nothing to stand on. Well, looks like the guy built it, he disagrees with your classification, and he's asking for change. And now it seems he's getting beat on for doing it, but in advance?

Sorry, but I'm the one that just doesn't "get it".

Greg, who - apparently foolishly - spend several years building a 10/10s FWD 4-cyl NX2000 for ITS, all the while expecting the Club to eventually "do the right thing." And they did. And he now wonders, could that even happen today, or will someone else come up with yet another excuse/reason when he meets their demands, say for example with an overly-heavy ist-gen Toyota MR-2, or a FWD car in ITS/ITR, or some other car attractive but apparently misclassed? Would he be ridiculed today for building that car in ITS, even knowing in hindsight its eventual success?

More importantly and to the point, is it reasonable action today to spend his own money to try and prove the ITAC wrong, with the very real risk if being told "car is properly classified"...? "Build and we'll talk about it" seems to no longer be a reasonable path to serious consideration for reclassification...well, unless it's been raced for more than a couple of years. By a lot of people. 'Cause he'd probably get that silly "single data point" excuse next...

Lose. Lose.

[Knestis]

Not odd. It was not an ITR car until Jan 09. He ran the car in a catch all class. It was also running about 250# light and with RR shocks. It was basically Grand Am trim. As usual Ben has half the facts and all the knowledge.:eek: Plus when did we start using on track results and new track records for a comp comparison? Lets stick with real numbers.

Ah - DUH on my part. Thanks, Steve.

K

EDIT - From our conversations, I *think* that Jake's primary issue with the Marcus letter is in the idea that maybe he didn't ask for what he wanted. Or he did ask for something that wasn't necessarily what he wanted. THAT"S not fair to the committee. We get a lot of letters that don't ask us to do anything, or that ask us to do something we aren't empowered to do. We really want to do a good job but we've got to follow some rules.

I for one - this won't surprise Greg - don't buy into the "you have to prove that it's not competitive" part of these discussions. It's not possible to do so, so for someone to even suggest that it's a legitimate consideration is a problem. But even more fundamentally, we should NOT be making our decisions based on what we see on the track. It's tempting but that is lousy methodology. We *think* we're making decisions based on "evidence" or "data" but that's just not the case if we do that.

In short and to my mind, the guy who says, "I'm two seconds off the other guys" is just as wrong using that as a rationale for change, as is the guy who says, "You're two seconds too fast."

And Greg - the current ITAC wouldn't tolerate a "NX2000 in S" situation for a New York minute.

[Andy Bettencourt]

In the blowback from the Bettencourt rant, I think you guys missed my original point.

Both of you, how is this any different in the end? What is the significance of "unclassed" (or "not classed prior"?) Would it have been better to wait until January 1st 2009, after the car was officially classed, to spend the money and begin to build a full-up effort, only to end up at the same place we are now, but a year later? Or, how about if the guy had hidden it in a garage somewhere, not told anyone about it, then not brought it out until the first Regional in Florida last month, then started complaining about it this year instead of last?

In the end, the only difference is that we're having this conversation one year earlier. Why is that a problem?

And that's my point: it's been this forum's (and the ITAC's) position that if you disagree with a classification, until you "build it" to prove otherwise you've got nothing to stand on. Well, looks like the guy built it, he disagrees with your classification, and he's asking for change. And now it seems he's getting beat on for doing it, but in advance?

Sorry, but I'm the one that just doesn't "get it".

I don't think you are understanding the facts here Greg. There is no difference in the timing at all - but it's because there is a process that sets a weight and that is pretty much it. To tell the ITAC that "I spent $70K hoping that you guys would class it correctly" and then being upset afterwards is a little disingenuous. Why not wait to see if you 'like' the weight and then build it? ESPECIALLY when it's a car that you know there is going to be a ton of disagreement on. Especially.

If you want to build one to 'prove the negative', then you have an uphill battle for sure. Not sure how that can be any other way. With all the game playing etc, we have to be so sure that the power number is good that is doesn't wreck the class.

Greg, who - apparently foolishly - spend several years building a 10/10s FWD 4-cyl NX2000 for ITS, all the while expecting the Club to eventually "do the right thing." And they did. And he now wonders, could that even happen today, or will someone else come up with yet another excuse/reason when he meets their demands, say for example with an overly-heavy ist-gen Toyota MR-2, or a FWD car in ITS/ITR, or some other car attractive but apparently misclassed? Would he be ridiculed today for building that car in ITS, even knowing in hindsight its eventual success?

Well Greg, foolish is a rough word. Wreckless maybe. What if the ITAC classed your car at a weight you didn't like? I think all we are saying is that it seems to be much better to look at the weight FIRST, then start throwing money at it. Seems like a simple to understand concept really.

More importantly and to the point, is it reasonable action today to spend his own money to try and prove the ITAC wrong, with the very real risk if being told "car is properly classified"...? "Build and we'll talk about it" seems to no longer be a reasonable path to serious consideration for reclassification...well, unless it's been raced for more than a couple of years. By a lot of people. 'Cause he'd probably get that silly "single data point" excuse next...

Lose. Lose.

I just don't see this as any different than it ever has been. In IT, you build it and it is what it is. No comp adjustments. If you feel there was an error in the process in classification, you provide your data and try and convince the ITAC that they missed something. I am just not seeing how this is unreasonable. Funny how nobody sends in power numbers telling us we underestimated their power and it would be good for the class for us to raise their weight. It's just not reasonable to expect that.


And to the 'silly single data point' excuse comment, I call BS. You and I have had conversations about your power output in the NX2000. Anyone who saw your power numbers could have writtten in and asked to have that car re-evaluated based on new data. If a single data point was to be accepted, boom, your car weighs over 100lbs more overnight. I just don't accept that a single source is enough to make a move no matter how much I trust you or Matt is putting a legal product on the track. It's not fair to membership or anyone on the ITAC who doesn't know you. Can we agree on that? How is that different than an RX-8 guy telling us he only makes 198hp at the wheels and he should be 2850 in ITS...

It's a tough battle for sure, but how can it be any other way? Help us define some evidentiary standards for someone who wants to prove the negative and we can move forward. Really, post here what you would like to see - and from whom in order to change a min weight based on power.

[Greg Amy]

Why not wait to see if you 'like' the weight and then build it?...it seems to be much better to look at the weight FIRST, then start throwing money at it.

So, you're saying 'don't build it unless you think it will be competitive, and don't cry to us afterward if you do and it's not'...

...but...

If you feel there was an error in the process in classification, you provide your data and try and convince the ITAC that they missed something.

...and the ITAC's "prove it to us" response is, typically, followed with "build it first and prove us wrong, because we won't take your word for it, nor will we accept your logic, nor your experience, nor your intelligence or knowledge, nor will we accept computer programs or expert testimony, either."

Uh, ok. So which is it?

The ITAC has made it clear that the only way to "prove" something, positive or negative (as much as it can be) is to "build it and prove it." Go view that whole shebang about FWD in ITS/ITR I started last month. Or to the thread on how I think the 1st-gen ITB MR-2 was classified at too heavy a weight? Or how about the one where I think a first-rate-build and -driven Miata is going to clean up ITA once it truly happens because it's too light? I can dig up and link all those specific instances (as well as others) if you deny this is true.

The response was - to a "t" - "fine, you go build it and prove us right/wrong."

Understand the confusion and frustration here?

And to the 'silly single data point' excuse comment, I call BS. You and I have had conversations about your power output in the NX2000.

Andy, we're talking generalities, here. You're inferring (and taking personally offense with) specifics that I am not implying. I'm simply pointing out - towards the generality - that these are the responses and calls to action that always come with these exact questions/comments.

...I just don't accept that a single source is enough to make a move no matter how much I trust you or Matt is putting a legal product on the track.

Though, again, it's not relevant to the discussion (and I don't know why you're singling out this specific example) and it is most decisively a non-sequitor to the current conversation, this classification "process" has gone drifted well off the objective path, venturing deep into the subjective calls of a handful of folks in a closed room ("...meet the new boss...") Foremost in that subjective process, it has been made abundantly clear to the membership and participants that "known information" is now supplanting objective calculations whenever it is available.

As such, it is imperative that "known information" is used both ways, not just in the direction that the ITAC wishes.

Regardless of number of data points, and regardless of the characteristic being discussed, even one single case that proves it "can" be done proves that it "must" be done to be competitive (we're assuming legally), regardless of its effect. Ergo, since it "can" be done, and since the ITAC/CRB stresses that if it "can" be done then it "must" be done as part of the preparation process (e.g., you can't claim to be slow against the other BMWs since they spend $6000 on shocks and you put in KYB AGXs, and/or the "build it and prove us wrong" concept) then it must be included as part of the subjective classification process as well.

Just because others choose not to use that potential advantage because it may not be needed to be competitive (vis-a-vis "the old days" when one could win IT on a lightly-modded outdated Showroom Stock car) or because it's too expensive (e.g., those awesome Koni 2817 struts) doesn't mean that that potential advantage should be simply ignored as part of the "process".

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander...

GA

[lateapex911]

...and the ITAC's "prove it to us" response is, typically, followed with "build it first and prove us wrong, because we won't take your word for it, nor will we accept your logic, nor your experience, nor your intelligence or knowledge, nor will we accept computer programs or expert testimony, either."

..............
The ITAC has made it clear that the only way to "prove" something, positive or negative (as much as it can be) is to "build it and prove it." Go view that whole shebang about FWD in ITS/ITR I started last month.

GA

Whoo boy Greg.

Fist, let me very clear.

MY 'problem' with Buzz is that his request was, essentially, unreasonable. How hard is that to see? IF his letter was sarcastic, well, that's not smart. And, judging by the amount of money he tossed at that car (heck, the dampers on/off the car alone are worth more than lots of guys entire outfits, LOL) he's gotta be smart enough to rake in enough cash...yet, we have to take his letter at face value.

All we can do when we get a letter like that is respond appropriately.

So, if someone doesn't don't like something, tell us exactly what it is, why it is, what to do, and provide empirical data that shows us the error of our ways.

You know what? That's often a lot of WORK.

Just like college though, the letters we get that DO provide real data and a clear concise call to action, are the ones we can work with.

But, I'm sorry, a letter that says, "It can/can't be done, I have years of experience, I'm very bright, you'll have to trust me", isn't a starter!

We have a duty to the mebership that each ITAC member must be able to say, "I saw the numbers, I saw the data, I have confidence in the out come", and the membership isn't going to take "We got a letter from a guy who said "trust me" as a legitiment reason for a change.

In Buzz's letter he asked for something that was unreasonable, (or was a joke) and provided no data other than one races results. And look at the facts that came out after the fact on THAT! Sheeesh.


But further, we have never said the items in your quotes.

And, what's REALLY ironic, is that you have NO idea whats happening behind the scenes. Your FWD issues were interesting, and Andy and I both asked you to help provide empirical data to prove your point. Truth is, we were truly interested, (to the point of calling each other and discussing the issue over the phone, to try to get a handle on it....and we were on your side!) but again, we need to justify any actions to our membership. In essence, what we were saying was "Please help us and give us some teeth to go into battle with". But your response was one of "I have the experience, I've been doing this for years" and so forth.

Interestingly, it was Mike who actually came up with solid empirical data, something that we can work with and present to the committee. Remember, teh committee is a buch of guys, and you know what? They don't all know you, or Steve, or whoever. They have to see the numbers.

Again, we are bound by duty to be able to explain our actions to the membership.

Have we done that perfectly in the past?? NO!!! Can we do it better? YES! Are we trying? YES! Will it get better? I'm sure!. You have no idea how hard we're trying, the steps being taken, and the things going on behind the scenes.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I had typed up a long point-by-point response and it didn't hit so I will simplify for ease of the read.

Greg - in my mind, your comments are from someone who has only looked at what should be done in a perfect world. Yes, I agree that one data point does constitute information that could be acted on but we have been talking about evidentiary standards on our calls and on our forum. Please answer these questions directly, not in conceptual terms without any solutions.

Is one guys dyno sheet enough information for you to change a minimum weight? If yes (as you seem to imply):

How did you validate it in terms of legality?
How did you validate it in terms of 'maximum effort'?
How did you validate it in terms of truthfulness?

If no:

How many dyno sheets (or pieces of information) would you need in order to deem a power figure 'valid'?

Or, as you have stated in the past - put everyone at the same power multiplier so as to eliminate the potential pitfalls of human error and bias.

Your post asks for an 'either - or' and we are not comparing two like items. All I am saying is that it is foolish to build a car before it's classed and complain about it's weight. Complaining about a factor that was used in it's classification is fine...but smart money says to wait until you get the info before you throw money at it.

Yes, proving a negative is tough...VERY tough. I just don't see how it's not in the best interest for it to be.

[Greg Amy]

Guys, I've made a pact with myself this year: I'll argue with the ITAC Gang member(s) once, maybe twice, then I won't bother to spend a lot of time online with it.

I've hit my limit.

You both have my cellphone number in your Rolodex. You know where to find me at the paddock. But I am not going to pit myself against the Gang online and - literally - waste a lot of time, because you are a rock that cannot be convinced, seemingly ever.

You want to play these games face-to-face over a Yeungling (or a Diet Fanta)? I'm game. I'll explain it all to you to your heart's content. But, short of pulling a Bill Miller and permanently lurking (welcome back, Bill!), I'll give you a couple of shots then I'm done online.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are you serious? I ask you to answer some legitimate questions that we wrestle with every day in order to come to the positions we come to, and you (again) take your ball and go home. We THINK we see the big picture but it's not always possible, even with 9 guys.

Give it a shot. The questions are legit, no?

[Greg Amy]

Call me on the "phone", Andy (and/or Jake, or anyone else). I'm tired of spending hours online trying to write the same things over, and over, and over, and over. The phone - or in person - is FAR more effective than swinging an e-penis online for posterity.

At some point, the answering of questions with questions, and bickering back and forth, and puffing out the chest becomes tedious. You want to endlessly debate minutiae? That will require phone or beer. Preferably beer. - GA

[ddewhurst]

[D. Ellis-Brown]

In this month's Fastrack there is a submittal to "Allow the removal of the windshield washer system" and was submitted by Hullinger –the response to this request is “This is outside of the parameters of the class philosophy”….I know where the Purpose and Intent of Improved Touring are documented within the GCR. The only reference to "philosophy" (that I have found) is in the reference to the statement "that we will give you a place to race you car and have fun, but not guarantee that you will be competitve". I have never seen a documented statement titled "Philosophy or Parameter of the Class Philosophy". Please let me know where such a document can be found so that we can use it as a reference for future submittals. I am sure that many competitors in Area 3 would like to be made aware of the IT class philosophy”. We are being indoctrinated that words "shall" mean something. If this is the case I would like to familarize myself with the said "class philosophy" . Now if no such document or statement on philosophy exists, then the rationale for rejecting this request is invalid. Therefore Mr/Ms Hullinger should be given the courtesy of a more creditable response from the CRB or the ITAC why their request was rejected. Any member of SCCA who submits a "rules change request" should be given the courtesy of a creditable, logical, rationale response. Not some nebulous, meaningless statement in response.
Respectfully , David Ellis-Brown