Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[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

[RSTPerformance]

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!

Oh wait you ask for member feedback then do nothing with it should I mention AWD???

Raymond

[JeffYoung]

There has been and continues to be significant discussion about AWD. There are basically three 'camps" I see on the ITAC on this issue:

1. One group says class the cars, at least 2-3 people have written in wanting specifically to class an N/A AWD car so they can build it. That group feels like that is enough to justify doing it.

2. A second group sees it as a cost benefit analysis. There are so few N/A AWD cars as to create only a small benefit by classing them. On the downside, classing AWD cars will be difficult because we don't fully understand their handling dynamics, and whether (a) there actually is a handling "penalty" in the dry and (b) how much of an advantage AWD is in the wet.

3. A third group is adamantly opposed based on the perceived advantage AWD has in the rain.

Right now, it's stalled due to the significant split into the three groups I list above.

[Spinnetti]

There has been and continues to be significant discussion about AWD. There are basically three 'camps" I see on the ITAC on this issue:

1. One group says class the cars, at least 2-3 people have written in wanting specifically to class an N/A AWD car so they can build it. That group feels like that is enough to justify doing it.

2. A second group sees it as a cost benefit analysis. There are so few N/A AWD cars as to create only a small benefit by classing them. On the downside, classing AWD cars will be difficult because we don't fully understand their handling dynamics, and whether (a) there actually is a handling "penalty" in the dry and (b) how much of an advantage AWD is in the wet.

3. A third group is adamantly opposed based on the perceived advantage AWD has in the rain.

Right now, it's stalled due to the significant split into the three groups I list above.

Why not class it "normally" then? the disadvantage in the dry gets cancelled out by the wet advantage?

I've been racing right about 20 years now, most of that in IT, and for me it mostly trying to keep up with the constant rule changes and the incredibly anal debate over so much of them. Right now, I'm having more fun in Lemons where its my driving and pit work that matters, not the car.

[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

[Andy Bettencourt]

And it is nice to give the membership a couple months on a solicited item. AWD was voted on and a recommendation made to the CRB. Since the member comment was 'for' AWD (NA) overwhelmingly - hey, one FAMILY (right Ray?) can have 30% of the votes, you know...

So AWD is something the ITAC would undertake classing should the CRB lift the ban and ask us to do so.

[tnord]

the overall view.....

1) rules "season." Oct 31-Dec 31, eff Jan 1. No changes can be made outside of that window. you can talk about them all you want, but nothing goes into practice other than Jan 1 of the next year.

2) stability. this has been completely absent in my mind over the last few years. VIN rule, ECU, weight changes, cars moving classes, FWD weight breaks, etc. the underlying philosophy is that you should be able to build a 100% car today, and be able to count on running that car competitively for 5-10yrs without major change.

3) stop trying to balance the class "on the tip of the pin." i know it was a stated objective when the process v1 was run, but i feel like you've lost the plot on that one. using simulators as data, re-running all cars to go through the process and be classed within 5lbs of the output, stepped FWD weight breaks, all seem to be in conflict with this principle. it also violates rule #2.

4) maintain a prep level between Touring and Prod

now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.

2) top TWENTY classes in participation are eligible for the runoffs, including IT. hopefully you would have world challenge guys showing up.

3) if a listed car does not record a FINISH in 3 years, it is removed from the ITCS.

4) for cars listed not using the standard formula, all supporting data is published.

[Knestis]

A couple of your background points aren't entirely accurate (e.g., using simulations as "data") but THANK YOU, Travis.

K

[jimmyc]

now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.

I don't think this is possible. With the invent of WC-Vision, it seems that SCCA pro racing is JUST a sanctioning body, that enforces rules given to them, and conducts all of the on track stuff. But they don't have, or appear to have much of anything to do with the rules.

And WC-Vision seems VERY set on keep the current rules they have.