Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[shwah]

I guess I'll post here what I did elsewhere, and give some thought to the content of a letter on the general subject of IT to the powers that be. It's hard for me to do that because many of the issues I see are larger than IT, and require a re-consideration of the Club Racing structure as a whole (dump Regional/National, have 'Races', invite top 20 classes in participation to the Runoffs the following year, invite the rest to ARRC, treat all the classes equitably and make the effort to make them all competitive places to race - maybe apply some of what makes IT so good to other classes).

As far as what appears to have brought this conversation to the fore:

If the intention was to make a number of changes around 'target' cars to improve equity in the class, it seems putting that together as a package would have made the concept easier to communicate to the decision makers.

Of course I am still in the position currently that we need to address the 'standard of evidence' issue for alternative process inputs. If you guys get a car wrong on the heavy side, people will be incentivised to send in data showing a lower than assumed power gain, and that data can easily be skewed. If you guys get a car wrong on the light side, people will not be incentivised to share any data - I know I am not going through a 10/10ths build of a competitors power plant to prove the mistake, and they certainly are not dumb enough to share it. You are setting yourselves up to create overdogs by not addressing this issue first because the correction mechanism available won't be triggered (unless you start to consider 'on track performance' - which is a bad idea in most cases).

Since the A2 Golf/Jetta weight 'inaction' was precipitated by my request early last year, I'll speak to it. While I agree with the philosphy of classing the cars where they land, and on this basis wish the change were approved, I could care less about whether I get a 10 pound reduction, because the reality is that the car is closer to 10 times that far off achieving equitable power/weight compared to the other front runners in the class. At this point the issue is dead to me and I'll find a way to win with what I've got (EDIT - it has been suggested to me that the expectation was that other cars would move the other direction putting them in closer to equitable positions). Building and testing several custom headers now, flow testing several heads, manifolds and throttle bodies now, whatever it takes to remove any possibility of not having everything legaly possible out of the car. This is why I have not raced this year. I don't want to bring a knife to the back straight at MO or RA next year. My position is certainly not impartial on this particular case, so my opinions are likely skewed at least some on the subject.

I have heard rumors of other requests that were not acted on, and they have raised my eyebrows a lot. To the point that I would lose a lot of faith in the category if they went through. Thus my beating the drum of knowing that we know what we think we know, rather than knowing what we were told, before taking action. It will be harder to fix a mistake than I used to think IMO.

[rsportvolvo]

IMSA, NASA, and other racing organizations thrive due to the shortcomings of the SCCA. These alternate organizations would not exist had SCCA done a better job.

My recent request for the Volvo 240 is not a weight reduction request, but a line item review as some information listed is flat out wrong (i.e. exhaust valve size is 35mm, not 37mm!). If the weight changed, good. If not, at least I can build a legal car using OEM parts. I'm not sure if my request was denied. If it is, I will be writing a letter.

Same crap happens in SCCA Pro-Racing too. It's unfortunately the SCCA way.

Has the ITAC written down their philosophies and practices? If not, now is a good time since they are under scrutiny.

[JeffYoung]

There will always be alternative motorsports organizations due to differing cultures. There are things that frustrate people about SCCA; there are things that frustrate others about NASA.

The Volvo request has been looked at several times and is being worked on. It has not been denied.

I certainly agree that, at a minimum, the "Process 2.0" for determining a car's race weight should be published.

IMSA, NASA, and other racing organizations thrive due to the shortcomings of the SCCA. These alternate organizations would not exist had SCCA done a better job.

My recent request for the Volvo 240 is not a weight reduction request, but a line item review as some information listed is flat out wrong (i.e. exhaust valve size is 35mm, not 37mm!). If the weight changed, good. If not, at least I can build a legal car using OEM parts. I'm not sure if my request was denied. If it is, I will be writing a letter.

Same crap happens in SCCA Pro-Racing too. It's unfortunately the SCCA way.

Has the ITAC written down their philosophies and practices? If not, now is a good time since they are under scrutiny.

[tnord]

and would someone like to lay out just what version 2.0 is? it'd be kinda nice to know before i try and give feedback on it, and to see if i need to put the car i just built up for sale

[chuck baader]

More than anything, I think a potential competitor should be able to go to the rule book and either find his/her car or be able to run the process on a new car to ascertain the class in which it would run. Other organizations mentioned have that capability without jumping through hoops. Hopefully, process V2.0 will alleviate some of the angst in car selection.

NASA has thrived on the GTS front on HP/WT but I think interest in that class is waning. People are starting to realize that classification solely depends on money, as does competitiveness. I am seeing a lot of NASA drivers looking hard at IT. As they say, "come on down". Chuck

[MMiskoe]

Opinion:

ITAC/Comp board would do a lot to win the trust of the masses if they would be a bit more transparent. If this legendary process was a bit less secretive there would be fewer questions asked (at least to publish how a weight was arrived at when a new car comes on board). If there is a question that has been put in front of either the ITAC or the comp board, it should be mentioned in every Fast Track until it gets closed. (How f'ing hard is it to acknowledge that you have a letter?)

If IT went national, similar to SM, there are enough people in the grid that you would see regional only classes pop up just like spec RX7 if it were merited. In other words if people found that National IT just didn't do it for them and they had enough people who agreed, there would be a move to make some change or gentlemen's agreement not to do what the national guys were doing. This would result in a non-national class.


Fact:
If "the process" was non-subjective, was consistent and had been applied to all cars on the books at the time, none should be off an ounce. So why are is anyone fiddling around w/ a 10 pound change? Get on to more important things please like trying to find new cars to fill the grids.

[RSTPerformance]

Two MAJOR problems with SCCA/IT now...

ITAC/Comp board should at least publish how a weight was arrived at when a new car comes on board.

How f'ing hard is it to acknowledge that you have a letter (other than an e-mail that only says you have been waiting 8 (or isit 9) months a few more won't be to bad... If there is a question that has been put in front of either the ITAC or the comp board, it should be mentioned in every Fast Track until it gets closed.

Raymond "Matt I am with ya" Blethen

[Knestis]

Has the ITAC written down their philosophies and practices? If not, now is a good time since they are under scrutiny.

Yes. Just got them finalized but even that statement can be misleading since in truth, not much has actually changed since le Grand Réalignement. The math is pretty much the same. The biggest changes have to do with the practices around applying that math - in all instances, removing ambiguity and opportunities for subjectivity.

...Fact: If "the process" was non-subjective, was consistent and had been applied to all cars on the books at the time, none should be off an ounce. So why are is anyone fiddling around w/ a 10 pound change? Get on to more important things please like trying to find new cars to fill the grids.

Because (a) it was requested by a member to re-examine it, and (b) it had not been through the current process. The Golf II was one of the "bogey cars" for the Great Realignment since the perception was that it was competitive at its then-current weight. The other ITB cars that were changed (and a LOT WERE NOT) got their weights set by the ITAC at the time.

The "process" had substantial room for subjectivity at that time, as well: The MATH was pretty much the same as what we do now but the PHILOSOPHY was much different, such that if the process spit out a weight that "just wasn't right," it could be changed based on what committee members felt was best. The official guidelines in place at the time included directions to "Review the resulting classification weight and determine if the results are acceptable."

NO arguments from me - inside view - re: documenting requests, getting to them in a timely way, and keeping the membership accurately informed about where things are. We hear from our CRB liaisons that the Club office is working on a web-based system to manage that but I kind of feel like if the inclination and organization were in place to do those things well, they'd be done well. In my experience, a technology solution doesn't change inclination or organization. There's lots of room for improvement there.

It's not a general issue but member input on the AWD question WAS reviewed on the last con call (Jeff was on an airplane at the time, I think), and the ITAC responded to the CRB with a first-principle position on the subject. What they do with that will be the next step.

I would also be interested to k ow who's requests have been worked on and who's are still on the shelf... 20 weight adjustment requests??? Get member feedback if you guys can't figure it out!

Read what I wrote again, Raymond: The ITAC has made its recommendations on those. They have been referred to the CRB. I don't think member input is warranted on every weight change but member input IS warranted re: factors that might bear on what the CRB does with those recommendations. THAT'S the point of my original post.

K