Wheel width, ITB, again

[GKR_17]

Solution - The answer is already in the rules - almost - and has been clarified by the recent remote-reservoir shock clarification: Clarify the language to make it explicit that if aftermarket wheels are used, they must conform to the current rules but that it is NOT required to change any stock part except to meet safety rules - including wheels.

I agree with the concept, but be careful - with wording like that it could be argued that the ABS systems don't have to be diabled.

[dickita15]

Let me ask a question -- if there were no wheel size differences between classes, and the only difference in two classes was weight ... would you all be asking for dual classifications? Why?

Another possible reason for a dual classification is there are a lot of existing cars that are built heavy so they would be just as happy in the slower class at a higher weight. Take the case of the ITA Rx7. It really is a tweener in my book yet when discussed about half wanted to move to B and half wanted to stay in A. dual classification would allow both sides to get what they want and as you pointed out there are so many body styles that can race in more than one class that I really think “Fan Confusion” is a weak argument.

[lateapex911]

I hate dual classifications. I hate that it's hard for anyone who isn't totally in tune with the IT ruleset (that is, potential IT competitors) to understand what the classing is all about.

For the 8 fans that are on the hill, I can deal with it in the very rare (1-2% of the cars listed?) case. FoOr the potential competitor, if they can't grasp that, the whole racing hill is going to be waaaay too steep for them.

Really, we have no fans, and we're only talking about DC-ing a tiny portion of the cars listed. And it would make life a lot easier for certain people.

[Knestis]

Given your "sunset clause" position, I infer that your position on the issue for those that wish to run 7" wheels due to price/availability of 6" (or, simply just want to run 7" outright in ITB/ITC) is "no bueno"? - GA

You infer correctly. I'm just not there. (Maybe add a "yet" to that statement.)

That's the THIRD problem in the mix and I can't make the benefit/cost math work out in a way that I can support it. I think we may be headed that direction but I don't think it's a pervasive enough problem yet, to warrant that large of a change.

K

[Knestis]

I agree with the concept, but be careful - with wording like that it could be argued that the ABS systems don't have to be diabled.

Looking at the even bigger picture, I've believed that we should be allowed to keep ABS since I came back to the game 5 years ago. That's another conversation though, and I don't worry about the required language in that respect.


EDIT - On dual classification more generally, I just think it's a bad idea. Every time it comes up, it's proposed as a solution to problem being experienced by a small number of cases. Want to double dip? Ask your region and they'll find a way to take your money. Hurt by a reclassification? I feel for you but, while we might have an obligation to ease the transition, we can't let individual issues stand in the way of a cohesive category.

If we DC a car that gets moved, we create two revised ITCS entries (one in each class) following review). If it's OK to DC a car in that kind of case, it should be OK to DC a tweener, right? We've got lots of potential tweeners. If I see a MkIII Golf in my mirrors right now, I can be sure it's in my class. But it's a potential tweener, so that might be a C car. And what if the reason my particular car is a tweener is that I weigh 400# (or 120# for that matter)? Dual classify my car so I don't have to add a bunch of ballast, or because I can't get to the class minimum.

And we've already suggested that a car that's dual classified might differ not just in weight, but in wheel size. And the (ugh) e36 example adds "restrictor" to that list. How about dual classification for "showroom stock" drivetrains? (Don't laugh: It's been mentioned.)

It's a first principle of our whole approach that there is a "right" classification and weight for each car, based on assumptions and practices applied by the ITAC. To suggest that there are TWO equally right answers flys in the face of that, to my way of thinking. Yeah, some of them are close ot the line but that's not enough of a rationale for the additional confusion. And yes - I AM projecting how the next iteration of that thinking will manifest itself. (See also, NASA PT.)

K

[JoshS]

For the 8 fans that are on the hill, I can deal with it in the very rare (1-2% of the cars listed?) case. FoOr the potential competitor, if they can't grasp that, the whole racing hill is going to be waaaay too steep for them.

Really, we have no fans, and we're only talking about DC-ing a tiny portion of the cars listed. And it would make life a lot easier for certain people.

I didn't talk about fans. We don't have fans. It's about potential IT competitors, and guess who they are? They are people racing with other organizations, or even SCCA racers who race in other classes.

[JoshS]

Looking at the even bigger picture, I've believed that we should be allowed to keep ABS since I came back to the game 5 years ago. That's another conversation though, and I don't worry about the required language in that respect.

Me too. It would probably get an adder in some classes (because cars with ABS might brake "better than the norm.") Different than the norm is the baseline requirement for an adder.

I recently made a list of all of the things in the ITCS that are "must" rules as opposed to "may" rules. There really aren't that many that are performance-related and I think it would be good to try to minimize them.

In case you are curious as I was, those rules are below. In all of these cases it can be imagined that some cars in their stock trim might not meet the specifications of the rule. In a perfect world, these would all be amended "unless configured this way from the factory" and things that have a performance advantage, if really a big difference from the class norm, would qualify for an adder.

4.f, 6.c: Wheel speed sensors disconnected (traction control, ABS)
5.a.1: Min ride height 5"
5.b.1, 5.b.2: shocks/struts: max 2 adjustments, no RR, no adjustments while car in motion
5.b.3: No two-part coil springs
5.c.1: Traction bars must be one piece
7.a.1, 7.a.6: Wheel diameter & width
7.a.4: Tread must be under fender
8.b: Front spoiler dimensions/openings
8.c: Nothing lower than wheel

And safety-related ones, which I think should be moved to from the ITCS to the core GCR:
8.f: Convertible tops removed, hardtop mounts replaced, sunroofs secured/removed
9.a: Driver's seat replaced with racing seat
9.b: No wood steering wheels
10.c: Airbags disarmed

[Bill Miller]

Why am I letting myself get sucked into this again???

It's a first principle of our whole approach that there is a "right" classification and weight for each car, based on assumptions and practices applied by the ITAC. To suggest that there are TWO equally right answers flys in the face of that, to my way of thinking. Yeah, some of them are close ot the line but that's not enough of a rationale for the additional confusion. And yes - I AM projecting how the next iteration of that thinking will manifest itself. (See also, NASA PT.)

Kirk,

I respectfully disagree. I'll use the New Beetle as the example. I'll argue that the pig-heavy ITC weight (2850# IIRC) is not the 'right' weight, as evidenced by the fact that nobody is building them. Why is it that that car is viewed as not being able to make the ITB weight, when the Mk IV Jetta (which starts out heavier) is? A Mk I Rabbit GTI in ITC @ 2250# is not the 'right' weight? Why not? What makes that less 'right' [sic] than 2080# in ITB? Is it because the car has run in ITB for so long?

I used to support the idea of DC, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's probably not the best thing for the category as a whole, in the long term. I think double-dipping is actually a good thing, and has the ability to bring more people to the track. But that's one of the only real upsides I see.

As far as throwing the ITA > ITB cars a bone, I'd much rather see you let them run the 7" wheels for 2 years w/ an extra 100# penalty, than give them the 2 year DC option. One way to look at the 2 year DC option is "Hey, we're trying to help you, but if you don't want to suck it up and buy new wheels, you can spend the next 2 years running around at the back like you always did. But please keep bringing your car to the track and paying your entry fees."

I think the real people that DC causes problems for is the tech people at the track. "Wait, what class is that car running in? What's it supposed to weigh? What kind of wheels can it run?" At least if you give them the weight for 2 years, you eliminate the first question.

Either that, or just let that car run 7" wheels in ITB forever, and set the weight appropriately. The more I think about it, that's what I think is the best appoach. It eliminates all of the above questions. For the handful of cars you're talking about, it's not the end of the world to have spec line allowances. As I said before, you've already got them. See the Del Sol / MR2 rear window rule, the Quad 4 car rear brake rule, the BMW trunk mounted cell rule, etc. etc.

[dickita15]

It's a first principle of our whole approach that there is a "right" classification and weight for each car, based on assumptions and practices applied by the ITAC. To suggest that there are TWO equally right answers flys in the face of that, to my way of thinking. Yeah, some of them are close ot the line but that's not enough of a rationale for the additional confusion. And yes - I AM projecting how the next iteration of that thinking will manifest itself. (See also, NASA PT.)

K

I agree with Bill that there might not always be a right call. The ITAC are umpires, and good umpires I think, and they make the best calls they can but that does not mean the call was always right. Why not let competitors make their own call. After all both classifications comply with the process.

[Knestis]

... I'll argue that the pig-heavy ITC weight (2850# IIRC) is not the 'right' weight, as evidenced by the fact that nobody is building them. Why is it that that car is viewed as not being able to make the ITB weight, when the Mk IV Jetta (which starts out heavier) ...

... As I said before, you've already got [line item exceptions]. See the Del Sol / MR2 rear window rule, the Quad 4 car rear brake rule, the BMW trunk mounted cell rule, etc. etc.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing here. Maybe I confused the conversation by using the word "right" but that's how we see it: There's one class and spec that makes the most sense, given the math we do. We've debated the "nobody is building one" indicator - most recently when Cameron requested that it be considered for movement to B - but we can't really look at it that way. We let the numbers make the decision rather than trying to engineer popularity.

We simply didn't believe that the NB could make it's spec weight in B. (It's at 2760 in C.) We were convinced that the Golf IV COULD make weight. The Jetta IV isn't listed but given how close the Golf seemed to be, I'd be a little surprised if we determined it should go with the Golf rather than the NB.

On the spec line exception examples, most of the ITAC members would LOVE to make all of them go away, except for where specific designs make safety exceptions necessary. Regardless, the exception does not set a precedent.

K

[JoshS]

We've debated the "nobody is building one" indicator - most recently when Cameron requested that it be considered for movement to B - but we can't really look at it that way. We let the numbers make the decision rather than trying to engineer popularity.

If we looked at it that way, we'd just add weight to most of the ITR cars and put them in ITS, since apparently no one wants to build them in R. In fact, we'd have to move most of the IT listings, because since no one is building one, it must be in the wrong class.

It's just a huge leap to conclude that no one is building a Beetle because they don't like the classification in C.

[Bill Miller]

I don't think we're actually disagreeing here. Maybe I confused the conversation by using the word "right" but that's how we see it: There's one class and spec that makes the most sense, given the math we do. We've debated the "nobody is building one" indicator - most recently when Cameron requested that it be considered for movement to B - but we can't really look at it that way. We let the numbers make the decision rather than trying to engineer popularity.

We simply didn't believe that the NB could make it's spec weight in B. (It's at 2760 in C.) We were convinced that the Golf IV COULD make weight. The Jetta IV isn't listed but given how close the Golf seemed to be, I'd be a little surprised if we determined it should go with the Golf rather than the NB.

On the spec line exception examples, most of the ITAC members would LOVE to make all of them go away, except for where specific designs make safety exceptions necessary. Regardless, the exception does not set a precedent.

K

Well Kirk, you could say that the numbers are trying to make the decision. The number being the zero that have been built since it was classified. And I'm sorry, but I don't see how a Rabbit GTI @ 2080# in ITB 'makes more sense' than a Rabbit GTI @ 2250# in ITC. I'm not saying that the ITC classification makes more sense than the ITB classification. I just don't understand how you can say one makes more sense than the other. It should be competitive in both classes at the respective weight (w/in the limits of the process).

And do I understand you right, the Mk IV Golf is in ITB, yet you're considering putting the Mk IV Jetta in ITC? If that's the case, you'll be creating the only example (AFAIK) in all of Club Racing where the same car is in two different classes (in the same category) based solely on a difference in body configuration (hatchback vs. sedan). Think about how that's going to look to an outsider looking in.

It's just a huge leap to conclude that no one is building a Beetle because they don't like the classification in C.

I don't think so Josh. Otherwise, why would someone have requested it be moved to B? You've got someone telling you that they don't feel the car belongs in C, so it's barely a leap, much less a huge one.

If we looked at it that way, we'd just add weight to most of the ITR cars and put them in ITS, since apparently no one wants to build them in R

Josh, please explain this logic. You'd add weight to an R car and move it to S because people aren't building them for R because maybe they think they're too heavy for R. How can someone requesting a car be moved from a lower class to a higher class (at a lower weight) because they feel that it's too heavy in the lower class be even remotely similar to moving a car from a higher class to a lower class and adding weight, unless a) they feel that they can't get to the R weight, or b) they feel that the R weight is already too high (don't know how moving it to S would fix that). Not to mention that comparing adding one car to an existing class to a whole new class, w/ a large list of cars that no one has built yet is not even close to being an apples to apples comparrison.

[JoshS]

I don't think so Josh. Otherwise, why would someone have requested it be moved to B? You've got someone telling you that they don't feel the car belongs in C, so it's barely a leap, much less a huge one.

You're right Bill, there's one example. And is rationale as I recall is primarily that there's no competition in C, not that the car isn't classed right in C.

Anyway, the point is that there are lots of cars that are not being built right now. Lots of them. In fact, there aren't very many cars being built right now at all, what with the economy the way it is. Does it really make sense to conclude anything about classing based on the number of active builds of each listing?

[lateapex911]

Josh is right...the requester has no interest in the car in ITC. No racing in C. Well, maybe that's a mild overstatement, but it's fair to say the odds are massively better in B.

Secondarily, the comment was made, "too heavy". (I assume that isn't referring to the 'correctness' of the process weight), but the enjoyment of the racing experience, or the (if it were to happen) way it would race against the typical competition.

So, no build.

[Knestis]

Well Kirk, you could say that the numbers are trying to make the decision. The number being the zero that have been built since it was classified. And I'm sorry, but I don't see how a Rabbit GTI @ 2080# in ITB 'makes more sense' than a Rabbit GTI @ 2250# in ITC. I'm not saying that the ITC classification makes more sense than the ITB classification. I just don't understand how you can say one makes more sense than the other. It should be competitive in both classes at the respective weight (w/in the limits of the process).

And do I understand you right, the Mk IV Golf is in ITB, yet you're considering putting the Mk IV Jetta in ITC? If that's the case, you'll be creating the only example (AFAIK) in all of Club Racing where the same car is in two different classes (in the same category) based solely on a difference in body configuration (hatchback vs. sedan). Think about how that's going to look to an outsider looking in.

We haven't had anyone request that the Rabbit GTI be moved to C but a thorough review of B might well suggest that this should be the case - no question. There are several current B cars that would follow that same logic but we don't have a mandate (yet?) to do a major overhaul, so we're responsive to member requests.

On the Jetta question, the decision would be based on whether it appeared that the trunk makes it heavy enough that it won't get to the B minimum - not on the presence or absence of the trunk. The numbers tell the tale. In fact, looking back at our notes, we had a request to list the MkIV Jetta but it hasn't been acted on, pending a request for more information.

K

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

I'll give you that the small C fields may well contribute the lack of anyone wanting to build a new C car. As far as your 'too heavy' comment, the 'correctness' of the process weight really doesn't matter. In the end, doesn't everyone look at the spec weight of the car, and decide (among other things) if they feel that it's appropriate for them to be able to build a competitive car? You could have an E36 @ 4000# (or whatever the actual process # would be) running in ITB. The weight would be 'correct' [sic] from a process standpoint, but no one would build one. Think about it, it's pretty much why R was created. To give cars that would have to be too heavy in S configuration, a place to race. You can determine a 'correct' [sic] weight for every car in the ITCS, for every class in the ITCS. Sure, some don't make sense, but all the 'correctness' [sic] says, is that given the inputs, here's what the process says this car should weigh for this class, nothing more.

And what's w/ this 'enjoy the racing experience'? Most of the people I know that run Club Racing do it to be competitive. That comment sounds like it is better geared to someplace like PCA w/ their 13/13 rule.


Kirk,

I actually pushed hard for the Rabbit GTI to ITC move back when the GR was being considered. And whatever happened to being proactive? If you guys are being directed by the CRB and BoD to not be proactive, that's a different story.

I still don't understand the NB in ITC thing. An '04 Golf 2-dr starts off at a published curb weight of 2771#. If that can get to 2350#, what makes you feel that an '04 NB that starts off @ 2743# couldn't?

[Andy Bettencourt]

For ITAC purposes, the 'correct' weight is the lightest achievable wight for a given class. Not ANY process weight for ANY class.

Edmunds shows 2712 for a 1998 New Beetle and 2544 for a Golf GL.

2170 is a wet weight for a 2350lb car without 180lbs driver. A 374lb loss for the Golf and a 542lb loss for the Beetle. These data points are and were considerations for the classifications.

[lateapex911]

Jake,



And what's w/ this 'enjoy the racing experience'? Most of the people I know that run Club Racing do it to be competitive. That comment sounds like it is better geared to someplace like PCA w/ their 13/13 rule.

Well, it's not a Porsche, but nevermind that, LOL. He just didn't want to drive a pig in C. Thats sums it up. He didn't say it wouldn't be competitive, but there are other cars that could be competitive that he'd rather pursue.

[RacerBill]

Just curious. Did any of the Shelby owners write to the ITAC voicing that they'd want their cars to remain in ITA? Was there an effort to get other owners to do the same?

Dave: I! had no advanced warning of the change, it was a surprise to me!

[Bill Miller]

For ITAC purposes, the 'correct' weight is the lightest achievable wight for a given class. Not ANY process weight for ANY class.

Edmunds shows 2712 for a 1998 New Beetle and 2544 for a Golf GL.

2170 is a wet weight for a 2350lb car without 180lbs driver. A 374lb loss for the Golf and a 542lb loss for the Beetle. These data points are and were considerations for the classifications.

And Edmunds shows 2771 for an '04 Golf 2-dr GL and 2743 for an '04 NB GL. So now you're looking at a 601# loss for the Golf and a 573# loss for the NB.

If anything Andy, that's making a case for all of them to be in ITC.