Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hopefully there is a continuom between 'where it's at' and 2xx off, and we end up at or near the most right/fair place. I was sort of hoping the discussion might result in some strategies to handle situations like that one - process says car that is perceived as competitive needs to lose a bunch of weight - fairly. Maybe taking steps in stages, as the natural motivation to prove the prep potentail for a power plant is only triggerd when folks think a car is a bit heavy - of course only possible if there is a follow up if/when pertinent data is available.

Chris, can you get into more detail on what you mean by this? How would you apprach this?

[Knestis]

>> ... I was sort of hoping the discussion might result in some strategies to handle situations like that one - process says car that is perceived as competitive needs to lose a bunch of weight - fairly. ... (emphasis added)

At least until last week when I lost the inside view, I knew there WAS a strategy in place to do that. But it required not caving in to perceptions - and that's REALLY the nut of the matter: We do NOT want to the rules-makers setting our race weights based on perceptions. They WILL be wrong as often as not.

K

(PS - As of this morning I find myself among the people who are going to want to get timely information about what the ITAC is doing. My picture of the process and practices of the committee is going to be frozen in time as of the 2nd week of September, 2009, and as a MEMBER I want to know what is up.)

[gran racing]

Originally Posted by gran racing
"2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given" but not communicated on this message board nor made public till they darn well feel like it.

Openness, and transparency should be the policy of more boards within SCCA. It gets membership involved and feel like they actually have a say and voice is being heard. Sure sounds like we're taking steps backwards lately even if it's just our perception.

Dave - what the heck are you talking about? Until the debate happens, the decisions are made and the sides are taken - can we tell you the outcome. Right?

Meaning...two weeks from now after this meeting takes place, it sounds like the powers that be won't want the results of this discussion communicated in forums such as this. Of course you can't tell us the outcome now, but wonder if you will be "able to" afterwards either. Based on some of the information discussed here, it sounds like instead we'll have to wait for Fastrack to print a one-liner BS explaination that tells very little.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally Posted by gran racing
"2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given" but not communicated on this message board nor made public till they darn well feel like it.

Openness, and transparency should be the policy of more boards within SCCA. It gets membership involved and feel like they actually have a say and voice is being heard. Sure sounds like we're taking steps backwards lately even if it's just our perception.



Meaning...two weeks from now after this meeting takes place, it sounds like the powers that be won't want the results of this discussion communicated in forums such as this. Of course you can't tell us the outcome now, but wonder if you will be "able to" afterwards either. Based on some of the information discussed here, it sounds like instead we'll have to wait for Fastrack to print a one-liner BS explaination that tells very little.

Not true. It's not about THE communication, its about the WAY things are communicated.

[seckerich]

Not true. It's not about THE communication, its about the WAY things are communicated.

Very True. It will be after the fact instead of before when there could have been input from drivers. I never really stopped to think what power we have allowed such a small group (the CR to have over our classes. 5 people are supposed to know what is better for every car in SCCA. Why the hell do we even have the advisory groups if they are just supposed to be in lock step with the CRB? Waiting to see how this plays out before rocking the boat.

[jjjanos]

Not true. It's not about THE communication, its about the WAY things are communicated.

Communication: The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior.

You'll note the word exchange in that definition. If information, not communication, is provided after the fact, then what we have is "failure to communicate."

The CRB will be giving us decrees, dictates and pronouncements. It will not be communicating.

Why the hell do we even have the advisory groups if they are just supposed to be in lock step with the CRB?

It's a hierarchy. BoD sets policy for the CRB and has ultimate authority to approve/reject CRB recommendations. CRB sets a subpolicy (consistent with the BoD policy) for the ACs and has the power to send recommendations back to the AC or bump them up to the BoD.

As a Regional-only class, we've lived free of the BoD spotlight because, historically, the BoD considered only the health of the Runoffs and Nationals. That's why revenue/sponsorship matters have often influenced the regulations of the National classes.

Frankly, the CRB is a relic and needs to be dissolved. The Advisory Committees knows their categories and drivers better than the CRB. Who is more in tune with the needs of Formula Reallyold- a guy who races SS and has no problem getting parts or someone who knows FRO?

Let the ACs make recommendations directly to the BoD.

[Knestis]

...or let the CRB make the final rule decisions for club racing, and let the BoD run the big picture business of the club...?

K

[shwah]

Chris, can you get into more detail on what you mean by this? How would you apprach this?

If process says a car weight needs to change by more than x%, publish that fact and move the weight by x/2% and monitor it. Those with the car in question will be motivated to prove why it needs to go the full distance and may develop and share the data required to confirm the std factors. The key is that we must be willing to move it again in a relatively short time all the way there, should the data support it - within a few years.

I believe it will be the exception to recieve data supporting higher gains on a car that looses lots of weight based on std adders because those with something to loose by the information being out there are the ones that have it. There is a disincentive to share such information. But by sharing the whole picture, and noting that moves beyond a certain amount (whether % or number of pounds based) require a half step and review - with the requirement of new information triggering the second half step, those with something to loose by the information not being out there will develop it.

Like I said, not a fully developed idea, but maybe a way to use natural incentives to gain data to confirm or deny a 'big' change, while not leaving the subject un-changed and hanging in limbo. Side effect will be more weight changes and the mis-perception that we are 'dorking' with weights all the time.

[tom91ita]

>> ..............and that's REALLY the nut of the matter: We do NOT want to the rules-makers setting our race weights based on perceptions. They WILL be wrong as often as not.

K

..............

so you don't think the waving wand of the whimsical weight waif/fairy is a good idea?

i don't either.

[Bill Miller]

Frankly, the CRB is a relic and needs to be dissolved. The Advisory Committees knows their categories and drivers better than the CRB. Who is more in tune with the needs of Formula Reallyold- a guy who races SS and has no problem getting parts or someone who knows FRO?

Let the ACs make recommendations directly to the BoD.

Jeff,

See my suggestion a page or two back about who should be on the CRB.

.or let the CRB make the final rule decisions for club racing, and let the BoD run the big picture business of the club...?

Gee, what a novel concept.

[shwah]

At least until last week when I lost the inside view, I knew there WAS a strategy in place to do that. But it required not caving in to perceptions - and that's REALLY the nut of the matter: We do NOT want to the rules-makers setting our race weights based on perceptions. They WILL be wrong as often as not.

I know this may be a point of disagreement between us, but I am not ready to assume that the standard gain that we default to is correct simply because we do not have data to dispute it. Lack of evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. That coupled with the fact that while a car's percieved performance is not a substantial data point by any stretch of the imagination, perceptions do not develop in a vacuum, they are based on real things that happen.

This is why if a car is percieved as competitive (OK how and the heck do we even define that one!) and is processed out the loose a bunch of weight (define some amount as 'a lot' - 5% of current? 200#? 300#? 10% of current?) care should be taken to not create an overdog just because we don't know any better.

Of course because of the whole lack of clarity, and often reality, around perceptions, maybe a simpler approach is to eliminate that factor all together and just stipulate that a 'large change' (in either direction) is handled in a staged approach. If all is in fact matching the base assumptions, we will end up in the same place, but if the known or unknown unknowns come to light (that felt very Rumsfeldesque) and prove otherwise we are able to take that into account.

[shwah]

...or let the CRB make the final rule decisions for club racing, and let the BoD run the big picture business of the club...?

K

I actually lean this way. I think a lot of the histrionics that the ITAC has gone through over the years is driven more by the BoD wanting to keep IT in the box they built it in, than in anything the CRB is or isn't doing. The CRB knows the limitations they have here as well as the ITAC. This is exactly why the GR was such a big deal - the fact that it was even allowed to take place - and is probably why there were not 'too many' cars run through the process at that time.

[jjjanos]

...or let the CRB make the final rule decisions for club racing, and let the BoD run the big picture business of the club...?

K

Can't. The BoD has the ultimate responsibility and authority for the club and thus, at some level, has to oversee the actions of everything related to the SCCA name.

[JeffYoung]

Chris, in the absence of proof/data on a particular car, if you don't like the 25% default, what should we do?

I feel pretty strongly that 25% is the "average" gain an IT motor sees.

So if not 25%, what?

[Knestis]

Can't. The BoD has the ultimate responsibility and authority for the club and thus, at some level, has to oversee the actions of everything related to the SCCA name.

And I have ultimate responsibility for the research and evaluation functions of the company I work for - but I don't make tactical, project-level decisions. "Oversee" is not the same as "vote on every proposed weight change."

K

[shwah]

Jeff - I don't think 25% is a bad assumption in general. I also don't think it is an accurate assumption for some cars.

As far as what to do, I just described it. Define 'large weight change'. IF a car will get a large weight change, do it in two steps, so that you stimulate the gathering and sharing of data to support 25%, or clarify a non standard number.

The X factor here is that I still get the impression that we are all too willing to accept dyno numbers from different sources as accurate to compare with each other. IMO a 'stock' build baseline run from the same equipment/operator is required to quantify what the gains of an IT build is. Stock, as in adjustments per factory manual - no balancing - stock as stock can be. I don't think enough people agree with this to make it a productive addition to the conversation, so 'it is what it is' IMO.

[Jeremy Billiel]

This whole recent set of events is abserd! This whole thing wreaks of typical SCCA bullshit. Plain and simple....

[jjjanos]

And I have ultimate responsibility for the research and evaluation functions of the company I work for - but I don't make tactical, project-level decisions. "Oversee" is not the same as "vote on every proposed weight change."

K

You do not have ultimate authority. You have delegated authority which follows a chain of command from the Chair of the Board through various levels of management until it reaches you. At any point, some level of command/management above you can say - stop.

Ultimately, the technical policies implemented by the body recommending/setting those policies must correspond with the goals and objectives of the organization.

What you seem to be suggesting is an omnipotent agency with no accountability to anyone other than themselves. Will that mean the GCR will be in Latin going forward? Will we be required to eat fish on the Friday before a race? Will Dan Brown's next novel be about the SCCA?

[lateapex911]

Will Dan Brown's next novel be about the SCCA?

No, his novels are rather simple in comparison...

[JeffYoung]

I agree it's probably not accurate, assumptions rarely are 100% of the time.

I just see anything other than going with a "roughly fair" default until we know better from actual dyno numbers (which we all do understand are to be closely scrutinized) as being "wild guesses" based on on track performance that aren't repeatable and consistent.

At least with the 25% default, until there is actual data, there is repeatability and consistentcy, which for IT is I think a paramount principle.

Jeff - I don't think 25% is a bad assumption in general. I also don't think it is an accurate assumption for some cars.

As far as what to do, I just described it. Define 'large weight change'. IF a car will get a large weight change, do it in two steps, so that you stimulate the gathering and sharing of data to support 25%, or clarify a non standard number.

The X factor here is that I still get the impression that we are all too willing to accept dyno numbers from different sources as accurate to compare with each other. IMO a 'stock' build baseline run from the same equipment/operator is required to quantify what the gains of an IT build is. Stock, as in adjustments per factory manual - no balancing - stock as stock can be. I don't think enough people agree with this to make it a productive addition to the conversation, so 'it is what it is' IMO.