Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[StephenB]

Dear ITAC members. Could you please voice your opinions in support of or against the Classification processes that I presented last week.

Thanks,
Stephen

PS: I am guessing you know nothing or very little of what I presented but honestly this is the exact same thing you are asking of all of us to do.

[gran racing]

No, it's not the same thing at all. It's quite possible that some haven't read it here, but the process has evolved to further reduce subjectivity. The "process 2.0" is merely fine tuning what existed and was used in the previous alignment. It basically boils down to the following:

- Do you believe the previous great alignment and process used to accomplish this was a positive thing?

- If it were possible to further improve upon this process and reduce subjectivity, enable members to actually see how the results were arrived at and why, and ensure more consistent results are obtained now and in the future - would you support this?

- During the previous alignment, only a few number of cars were run through the process. One could easily say that while this was a fantastic step, additional cars needed to have the same opportunity to determine if there is a potential classification issue (too heavy, or to light). Basically, are you in support of additional cars run through the same classification process as used on others?

[BlueStreak]

Before I throw my .02 out there, I want to thank all of you that have worked so hard to get us to this point, especially the G.R. Then I have to remind you that no good deed goes unpunished

My .02
1) Have a rules season in the fall/winter. Keep the rules stable during the season
2) Publish the process in the GCR, have a downloadable .xls on the website
3) Refine the process during rules season every year.
4) Ten years from now the process should stabilize.

Allow AWD cars, but make them remove 50% of their halfshafts

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask everyone to be prepared to add or subtract 2% on their weight when the process gets revised each "rules season".

[StephenB]

No, it's not the same thing at all. It's quite possible that some haven't read it here, but the process has evolved to further reduce subjectivity. The "process 2.0" is merely fine tuning what existed and was used in the previous alignment. It basically boils down to the following:

- Do you believe the previous great alignment and process used to accomplish this was a positive thing? YES IMHO and one of the best things that has happend in SCCA! IMHO

- If it were possible to further improve upon this process and reduce subjectivity, enable members to actually see how the results were arrived at and why, and ensure more consistent results are obtained now and in the future - would you support this? Absolutly this would be AWESOME and exactly what I personally am looking forward to in the near future!

- During the previous alignment, only a few number of cars were run through the process. One could easily say that while this was a fantastic step, additional cars needed to have the same opportunity to determine if there is a potential classification issue (too heavy, or to light). Basically, are you in support of additional cars run through the same classification process as used on others? I would support this! I think this would make the best situation for all cars and members to be equally competitive!

Dave... these are actual questions that I can answer without knowing anything about v1.0 or v2.0 if this is what the rest of the ITAC members where asking they should hire you as a consultant! My answers are in Bold.

Well done!
Stephen

PS: I love everything the ITAC has done... it's just hard to say/vote with confidence on my part that they should do something if I know nothing about it. for all I know I may write to the CRB saying I support v 2.0 and in V 2.0 how do I know it doesn't say eliminate all cars that have not been driven in 1 yr? I don't know and that's why this is hard for members like me to support these "alignments/changes".

[lateapex911]

PS: I love everything the ITAC has done... it's just hard to say/vote with confidence on my part that they should do something if I know nothing about it. for all I know I may write to the CRB saying I support v 2.0 and in V 2.0 how do I know it doesn't say eliminate all cars that have not been driven in 1 yr? I don't know and that's why this is hard for members like me to support these "alignments/changes".

Thanks Dave. But Stephen, where did Dave get all that? By reading what has been written here. Same as you have.

[lateapex911]

Dear ITAC members. Could you please voice your opinions in support of or against the Classification processes that I presented last week.

Thanks,
Stephen

PS: I am guessing you know nothing or very little of what I presented but honestly this is the exact same thing you are asking of all of us to do.

??? Where should I find it?

[Charlie Broring]

I have concerns with the ITAC recognizing the “Big Picture” at present. First of all, I think the “Process” is a great tool for the ITAC. However I think they are rather carried away with the accuracy of the formula and they underestimate the negative impact on rules stability that it is causing. I don’t think it is the Holy Grail that some of the ITAC think it is.

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Like some of my ITB friends I feel that our older cars such as BMW’s, early VW’s, Volvo 142's are being left behind. My perception is that as a result of the new ECU rules, the ITA cars that the process moved to ITB, and a classification system that seems to favor newer cars, ITB is changing. And, the ITAC is so caught up in their numbers game that they wont even look to see if that’s happening. I personally don’t trust the “Process 2.0" to not perpetrate the instability I see in IT.

The desire for more equal competition, is the whole point of the “process”. However some checks and balances including review of on track performance need to be part of the plan. The Process just isn’t good enough to be used on its own.

On a completely different note, I think that the SCCA would benefit from a group of classes, just above IT in preparation level, with Runoffs eligibility. Production and Super Touring just are not filling that role very well. This would both give the IT racer a “next step” in club racing and take away some of the pressure to make IT fill a role it wasn’t designed to do. Of course developing such a new class is a formidable undertaking.

Charlie

[JoshS]

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Charlie, this is well-written and I think your view is shared by many people including some CRB members.

Let me just say simply that no one on the ITAC believes that 10 lbs is significant, nor does anyone on the ITAC think it "needed a weight reduction."

This is about consistency. If the 2.0 Golf was not currently classed but a request came in, it would be assigned a weight 10 lbs lighter than it is now. More significantly, if another car that's on paper IDENTICAL to that Golf, it too would be assigned a weight 10 lbs lighter. Then you would all be asking why this new listing was 10 lbs lighter than the Golf which was already there.

This has already happened, BTW, many times, only it's not usually about 10 lbs, it's usually about 100 lbs. Basically, we feel that we should adjust all of the cars such that their weights are 100% reliable and defensible, so that listings between very similar cars look similar, to reduce those sorts of questions and to lend more credibility to the weight-assignment process.

Like some of my ITB friends I feel that our older cars such as BMW’s, early VW’s, Volvo 142's are being left behind.

Now, I think you must be talking not about the weight-assignment process, but about the changes to modification allowances. Totally different deal, of course. I'm sure you recognize that a 1971 car is assigned a weight with exactly the same process as a 1999 car. As far as the newer rules changing appearing to favor newer cars, I'm sorry you feel that way. It's not the intent.

[Knestis]

I want to elaborate on my original post by reminding everyone that you can post here until the cows come home, and it means NOTHING to the powers-that-be. In fact, I've heard grumblings about "internet chatter" as seemingly unwelcome by some folks in the rules-making process.

Write to your representative on the Board. Email the CRB. Tell them - don't tell us.

Stephen - I'm personally trying hard to not make this a question about endorsing or not endorsing current ITAC practice. I suppose that IS the question to a significant degree but we need to focus on first principles, like Ron and Charlie elaborated. The differences between "v.1" and "v.2" are MINUSCULE compared to those considerations and unless/until there's some vision established for the category, we'll always be mired in the minutiae.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me post a question to those who have replied so far:

Car A is set at 2500lbs now in ITX. Never been run through the process. VERY FEW examples exist on the track as it is a rare car, one that not many people are familiar with and to some, not desirable for varying reasons...call it 4 in the whole country. One of these cars however starts on the front row of the ARRC amidst traditionally tough competition and is a threat to win most of it's Regional races, week after week.

Legal? Unknown. It doesn't finish the ARRC and does not go through the tech shed but it's performance potential seems apperent to some - without knowing everything about that specific car.

Owner of car X writes in and requests a re-run of his car via the process. The SAME process that was used to class the past few ARRC championship winning cars. Process weight is spit out. 2300lbs.

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

[Charlie Broring]

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

This is when the Process is inadequate. The Process also fails when a capable builder/driver builds a dog (such as Chuck Allard's 911). This is where the ITAC needs to look beyond the limitations of the process, consider the multitude of other information that's available and apply some common sense. Certainly not as easy as sticking to the Process formula. However, I personally trust the ITAC to use good judgment in competition adjustments a lot more then I trust them to come up with a perfect "Process".

If "Car A" is really that good, there will be plenty more of them running soon enough. I sure hope Car A isn't racing in ITB!

Maybe I'm expecting too much.

It is easier for the ITAC to adjust the results of the Process if the details of the Process are not published.

Charlie

[Z3_GoCar]

Let me post a question to those who have replied so far:

Car A is set at 2500lbs now in ITX. Never been run through the process. VERY FEW examples exist on the track as it is a rare car, one that not many people are familiar with and to some, not desirable for varying reasons...call it 4 in the whole country. One of these cars however starts on the front row of the ARRC amidst traditionally tough competition and is a threat to win most of it's Regional races, week after week.

Legal? Unknown. It doesn't finish the ARRC and does not go through the tech shed but it's performance potential seems apperent to some - without knowing everything about that specific car.

Owner of car X writes in and requests a re-run of his car via the process. The SAME process that was used to class the past few ARRC championship winning cars. Process weight is spit out. 2300lbs.

What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.

There's not enough information in your example, some info you have that would help illuminate the example:

1) Motor data:

a) displacement ( and bore/stroke )
b) oe hp at what rpm
c) valve sizes and number per
d) does it have cheap cast oe manifold, is it a narrow v6 or have a dual length intake manifold
e) how many gear ratios, what are they?

2) Chassis data:

a) front or rear wheel drive?
b) Struts or A arm front
c) solid axle, trailing arm, or multi-link rear
d) Brake size
e) how aero is the body, is it a brick, or does it have a round tail end that sheds vortices (ala early TT/350Z)

This should mostly be avalible on the VTS sheet.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To clear things up...and it isn't coincidence that some of the misconceptions here are shared with the CRB....

First off, 'V.2.0' of the process is 95% clarification, 5% change. And by 'change' I mean things like moving from a fixed FWD subtractor to a percentage - something that makes way more sense and has been pointed out here numerous times. What we have done over the past 9 or so months is to set into practice a step-by-step way of setting a cars weight. It is not a formula but is as close as I really feel you can get. I would LOVE a formula but don't think it's possible. Each step has it's checks and balances and is documented. We had to hash out every possible nook and cranny - and define many things in order to get it down on paper. The result IMHO is really quite nice. Again, it's not so much change, as it is really a development excersize in definitions and policies so that we could go back and be guaranteed (barring no new information) that we would get the same answer for the same car year after year.

As for as the MK II VW is concerned...we ARE NOT telling anyone that a 10lb change is more accurate. What we are doing is running cars through the process - as documented - and setting the weight as spit out. That could be a 5lb change or a 200lb change...doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that all cars are 'set' using the same stick (however flawed that stick may be). I want to run every car through the process and set the weights however they fall, no matter the delta that is in the ITCS. Again, not saying that it's more accurate, just more consistant...and that is a HUGE goal of the ITAC...and by defination to some, STABLE. To me, the weights in the ITCS are a cluster-fark. Easily 3 ways of classing cars have resulted in weights that are in there. I can't think of one car that is a dominant run-away - that has been classed by the process. The cars that being 'left behind' are cars that we haven't had the 'luxury' of measuring with the same stick the current cars are being measured by.

The on-track performance issue is a grey area. I believe it is to be used as a 'trigger' to take a closer look. A look that is aimed at uncovering a 'mistake' or 'new information' that needs to be plugged into the process that would result in a different weight...most common would be a car exceeeding the standard 25% power multiplier. I do not believe in using it to reset weights based on finishing positions at singular races. The Process is still the way we class cars in IT. Not by trap speeds at the end of a straight at RA or whatever else you want to look at that we traditionally call 'Prod-style' adjustments.

Some still want to bring up the ECU issue (or rule changes like it) and rules stability. If you want to freeze the IT rules in time, then we could do that. But most agree that as times change, they rules will need to be updated. Wheel sizes, shock format, ABS...all being requested for change NOW by members just like yourselves. We resist such things for as long as we feel it makes sense. I can tell you for 100% certainty that the ITAC is a 'no' first, a 'yes' only after significant discussion and pain.

So, in summary, not much about the 'process' has changed, just defined. The CRB needs to recognize this too. They need to understand that a request to change a weight 10lbs isn't a proclamation that we think that is more accure - but that it is CONSISTANT and CONGRUENT with how everything that we have been classing over the past X years. To me, that is what will make IT desireable for years to come.

[shwah]

The 10 pound weight reduction request for the ITB 2.0 Golf is a perfect example. First, looking at the big picture it’s clear that one of the fastest ITB cars didn’t need a weight reduction. Secondly a 10 pound change is insignificant. Lastly, the fact that they are concerned about such a small change illustrates how the ITAC grossly the overestimate the precision of the “Process”.

Just to clarify for those that don't speak VW. The A2, or Mk2 Golf is NOT the 2.0 liter powered Golf. Kirk races a Golf III aka A3 Golf aka MK3 Golf, which has a 2 liter, 8v, crossflow head engine. I race a Golf 2, aka A2 Golf, aka Mk2 Golf, which has a 1.8 liter, 8v, counter flow head engine. The 10# suggestion was in relation to my car, not to Kirk's car.

[Ron Earp]

, 8v, counter flow head engine. The 10# suggestion was in relation to my car, not to Kirk's car.

Hmmmm. All us Z guys have non-crossflow heads. I wonder if that was taken into account when we got our weights assigned?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hmmmm. All us Z guys have non-crossflow heads. I wonder if that was taken into account when we got our weights assigned?

I hope you are joking.

[JeffYoung]

He's 100% joking.

[shwah]

Hmmmm. All us Z guys have non-crossflow heads. I wonder if that was taken into account when we got our weights assigned?

Just making the point that they are different cars with different motors/heads.