Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[gran racing]

Travis, let's make this clear - I do not think the process is perfect. However, I do think it's much better than what previous back room dealings have happened in the past.

Part of stability is having the cars judged by the same system.....

THIS is what we need along with being able to explain how the results were achieved other than "that car did pretty well at X track, so it can't possibly need a reduction in weight".

I think you guys are WAY over reacting.

I don't think so in the least bit. I will be contacting the BOD with my feelings related to the direction of IT and can honestly say I've never been more tempted to pack my bags and go play elsewhere or go boating.

[lateapex911]

1. I don't believe the ITAC believes that ..........

No, I, as an ITAC member do believe that. Based on my years of con calls, discussions with CRB members, I see no "Win the ARRCs, add 50lbs to the car" mentality. None. Now, if IT went National, then who knows, but, that's a LONG way off and a longshot, and I can't see that far into the unknown unlikely future .

I'll let other ITAC guys add their opinions, but my take is that I'm sleeping well about ARRC lead trophies. (And no, that has nothing to do with the fact that I'm unlikely to get one! )

[Andy Bettencourt]

in my discussions with the CRB that is not their intention. and the message being sent by your ITAC members doesn't indicate so either.

Not so sure about that. The message loud and clear is that on-track is a factor. I haven't received (haven't asked because I don't think its possible to quantify) a description of when, where or how these would be applied. One car winning the ARRC by a large margin? 3 of the same cars occupying the podium in the same class? Cars dominating big races consistantly? I have no freakin' idea. But it sure as shootin' is possible because nobody has told us it ISN'T.

I get pinged on the CRX all the time. Top 3 here, winner going away there (big races). Why no adjustment? Because with the data we have that we believe to be acurate, these cars fall within their process weight. They are just very well prepped and very well driven. At what point to you give credit to the teams that run them and just try and elevate your own game? The other syaing I have is 'the cream will rise to the top'. What I mean by this is that we account for a few things in the process. We don't have the ability to get more grainular. At some point, when comparing cars that look similar on paper, one may just be a better car. That is where I like to invoke the 'no guarantee' clause. We can only do so well and we accept that. I think that is what the IT community wants.

The current ITAC is chartered with classing new cars, suggesting rule changes, addressing member requests for both of those items...and helping the CRB correct an overdog as observed by on-track dominance.

[tnord]

to-meh-toe / to-mah-toe Jake.

treat cars equally / use the same yardstick.....whatever. bottom line is that you're attempting to use the same formula across a whole mess of cars with hugely different characteristics.

Part of stability is having the cars judged by the same system.....

and the bigger part is not changing the rules all the time along with the min weight listings.

there's nothing stopping you guys (ITAC) from recording what the process spits out for every car, comparing it to the weight currently listed, and working from there. the process says the Audi should lose 200lbs and the CRB doesn't like it because of ARRC qualifying? go do your research just as you were going to anyway to get dyno data and a corresponding HP/Wght ratio to plead your case as to why it should lose the weight.

Albin was an IT racer before he was a Prod racer.

[Knestis]

...And yes Travis I know there are 2 IT drivers on the CRB, both in ITB that race against the Audi that turned this whole process upside down. Is that supposed to make me feel more confident? Bad example.

Peter and Chris are both great guys but they have been vocal in their opposition to what they (incorrectly, I think) view as an overly formulaic approach to setting IT weights. Put simply, they fundamentally disagree with the first princples and philosophy behind what the ITAC tried to do - and has now failed to achieve - with the current process and practices.

They represent one view, that is certainly shared by SOME IT racers. However, I fervently believe that it is representative of neither the priorities of the majority of us, nor what is best for IT in the long run.

K

[lateapex911]

to-meh-toe / to-mah-toe Jake.

we'll agree to disagree on the subtleties you seem to gloss over..

but...

there's nothing stopping you guys (ITAC) from recording what the process spits out for every car, comparing it to the weight currently listed, and working from there. the process says the Audi should lose 200lbs and the CRB doesn't like it because of ARRC qualifying? go do your research just as you were going to anyway to get dyno data and a corresponding HP/Wght ratio to plead your case as to why it should lose the weight.

Actually, there is...it's not allowed. We need on track 'evidence' that it is upsetting the class to generate any formal research/action.

Albin was an IT racer before he was a Prod racer.

True, and he was on the ITAC before his CRB appointment. I think he was current when Darin was in the game, and left shortly after Darin handed over the reigns.

[tnord]

Not so sure about that. The message loud and clear is that on-track is a factor.

yup. and i think all they're looking for is just a little flexibility to say "ya know what, the process fails in this case, we probably need to do something."

95+% of the time......the formula is "close enough" for them too. but you guys (ITAC and the masses) have taken such an absolutely narrow view and hard line on it that it has come to what we have now.

[Knestis]

I think you guys are WAY over reacting. ...

Overreacting, say, as much as you did when you felt like SportsCar was leading a witch hunt (your term, I think) that would result in additional weight being added to the Miata?

Bite me.

You're becoming a poster child for why we SHOULD be worried about these developments. And I'm doubly pissed off at your suggestion that while members of the CRB was sanctioning me for having PUBLIC discussions about what was going on in ITAC land, they seem to have been engaged in back-channel conversations that let YOU in on their intentions.

What a load of crap.

K

[tnord]

Blow me Kirk. (one better than bite me)

i said nothing about SportsCar leading the witch hunt. those rallying against the miata were using the misleading article in Sportscar as part of their justification.

i didn't know shit until after it happened.

[Andy Bettencourt]

yup. and i think all they're looking for is just a little flexibility to say "ya know what, the process fails in this case, we probably need to do something."

And that is a fair statement. To which I ask anyone who uses the flexibility to PROVE to me that its better. It very well could be but I don't want a swag, I want to have something I can document so that others can see how it was done and the members affected can know that it was grounded in some sort of meaning. Very much the opposite of a comment made by a member just today when an approximate weight was given for a car in ITS - "No basis other than this "feels" too light."

95+% of the time......the formula is "close enough" for them too. but you guys (ITAC and the masses) have taken such an absolutely narrow view and hard line on it that it has come to what we have now.

All I want is to avoid un-repeatable and un-defendable weights. If we can get there, I have no issues. I think that is what the membership wants - no matter how 'wrong' the weights are. We DO have the ability to fix a mistake ya know...just haven't had to in 5 years. The process works. Fields have never been so diverse. EVER.

[lateapex911]

yup. and i think all they're looking for is just a little flexibility to say "ya know what, the process fails in this case, we probably need to do something."

95+% of the time......the formula is "close enough" for them too. but you guys (ITAC and the masses) have taken such an absolutely narrow view and hard line on it that it has come to what we have now.

So, let's follow that thinking logically, then.

We all know the Process doesn't account for the intrinsic gestalt goodness of certain cars. Like the 1.8 Miata. So, you'll have no problem with some weight being added to that car based on the failure of the Process, right?

[tnord]

Andy I think it's worth clarifying that the "member" that said "No basis other than this 'feels' too light' was just someone on a forum, and not a CRB member.

yeah, you do have the ability to fix a mistake, but you're pretty handcuffed by the limitations of the process and the evidentiary requirements to change anything. good and bad sides to that i recognize.

otherwise, I agree.

[tnord]

So, let's follow that thinking logically, then.

We all know the Process doesn't account for the intrinsic gestalt goodness of certain cars. Like the 1.8 Miata. So, you'll have no problem with some weight being added to that car based on the failure of the Process, right?

fail.

the CRB (and many members) want stability. we will have that now until significant and meaningful evidence is shown to prove otherwise.....same as before. the difference now is that if miatas sweep the podium under normal conditions and a strong field at the IT Fest and ARRC, the ability is there to add weight. and yes, if Cefalo, Yergler, and KVS show up to the ARRC, take the podium, and turn consistent laps significantly faster than the field....add weight. i'm fine with that. there's no discussion about adding weight "just because."

[shwah]

95+% of the time......the formula is "close enough" for them too. but you guys (ITAC and the masses) have taken such an absolutely narrow view and hard line on it that it has come to what we have now.

I actually think this is probably pretty accurate.


It is a game of semantics here.

ITAC says we have a consistent process, and it has not changed. Yet the process gives different results today for cars than it did before - so something changed. FWD adder is treated differently IIRCC. Torque was discussed, did it get added to the process? Of course it is impossible to really know because we don't have historical info on what inputs were used before (HUGE win by the ITAC on tightening the data history issue up going forward )

ITAC says we have a consistent process, and we should use what comes out of it, without exception. "Tweaking" it after the fact is smoke and mirrors. The membership wants a transparent process.

Of course there are tweaks that are applied on the input side of the process, applied based on data no one but they see, and no one cross examines for viability. Viability of dyno data is a huge issue, and happens to impact the easiest front end fudge factor.

CRB says we should look at what comes out of it and agree that it 'makes sense' before acting. I don't see that as signifnicantly different than the ITAC method of adjusting on the input side. I also don't know if raw lap times should be the data used here, nor do I think that random dyno plots have any fewer uncontrolled variables than lap times.

Neither one of those is a transparent process.

My head is spinning. When I squint I think that both bodies are trying to end up at the same outcome with different approaches. I can't figure out a way to declare either method correct or beyond reproach.

So now I find myself landing in the, 'leave it alone - the racing is good' mode. And even that does not feel super.

How does the saying go? When nobody is happy you know you got it right?

[JeffYoung]

That's what sticks in my craw the most. We approved significant weight changes for cars that were clearly out of whack via the process (the ITS Mustang and the ITA 318 being the two clearest examples) and those will now not get fixed.

It's hard to explain that to membership.

[lateapex911]

fail.

..........the difference now is that if miatas sweep the podium under normal conditions and a strong field at the IT Fest and ARRC, the ability is there to add weight. and yes, if Cefalo, Yergler, and KVS show up to the ARRC, take the podium, and turn consistent laps significantly faster than the field....add weight. i'm fine with that. there's no discussion about adding weight "just because."

You're fine with adding weight ...whatever amount 'feels right'.....because cars win/run well at one race? But you gave birth to a big cow when it was suggested that the Miata was making more than process power, and might get a mathematically calculated amount of weight that would be recorded and documented, in a repeatable an transparent manner??

You see the difference, right? Current up until Monday way: Cars romped at the ARRC, half built ones are winning over the country, lets look at the specs and see if we missed something originally. Yup, it's making 15hp more than process. Recalculte, document, done.

New way. (Actually Old old skool way) Wins and dominates. Add weight as we see fit.

???

I'll take door #1 everytime. Even if the amount is the same, the method breeds confidence in the membership, and that's priceless, and is what they want.

[tnord]

That's what sticks in my craw the most. We approved significant weight changes for cars that were clearly out of whack via the process (the ITS Mustang and the ITA 318 being the two clearest examples) and those will now not get fixed.

It's hard to explain that to membership.

I think it's kinda like when our CFO created this committee that had to approve any spend over $x dollars. the intent isn't to END spending, but just put the brakes on for a bit and see what we've got before everything goes spiraling out of control.

[lateapex911]

I think it's kinda like when our CFO created this committee that had to approve any spend over dollars. the intent isn't to END spending, but just put the brakes on for a bit and see what we've got before everything goes spiraling out of control.

No, it's not like that at ALL!

They're not saying, 'not now, but we'll look at those cars', they're saying "No". Rejected. Pound sand. Stuck at that weight forever. And all others like it, unless there is sufficient evidence they are hurting the class. Thanks for playing.

One of the joys of IT was the notion that lots of cars were classified, and there was hope that as many as possible would be set at competitive weights by the same yardstick(s). Now, many of those cars appear frozen.

[tnord]

You're fine with adding weight ...whatever amount 'feels right'.....because cars win/run well at one race? But you gave birth to a big cow when it was suggested that the Miata was making more than process power, and might get a mathematically calculated amount of weight that would be recorded and documented, in a repeatable an transparent manner??

You see the difference, right? Current up until Monday way: Cars romped at the ARRC, half built ones are winning over the country, lets look at the specs and see if we missed something originally. Yup, it's making 15hp more than process. Recalculte, document, done.

New way. (Actually Old old skool way) Wins and dominates. Add weight as we see fit.

you act like it's an automatic push-button response. i don't think that if a car wins the ARRC it will automatically get weight. but if a few show up, sweep the field, and basically kick the crap out of everyone.....then yeah.....go take a look at what's going on and why that happened.

i didn't like the idea of the miata getting weight based on "process power" because you couldn't justify it. i gave you data, lots of it, showing exactly that. i had a big problem with it because the process that was being used at the time didn't support the car getting weight, and people were trotting out this garbage sportscar article as "evidence."

[seckerich]

No, it's not like that at ALL!

They're not saying, 'not now, but we'll look at those cars', they're saying "No". Rejected. Pound sand. Stuck at that weight forever. And all others like it, unless there is sufficient evidence they are hurting the class. Thanks for playing.

One of the joys of IT was the notion that lots of cars were classified, and there was hope that as many as possible would be set at competitive weights by the same yardstick(s). Now, many of those cars appear frozen.

Now you get it Jake. It was all good until you guys actually were trying to get ALL the cars a fair chance. That is not their view of IT. That creates a system where members ask them to do something. They are too busy with National classes to do that. As long as you were just messing with a few cars it was OK. Slow, badly classed cars just hurt that driver and did not upset the class in general. Then you had to go fix the whole thing and start with ITB. WTF were you thinking? They see you as starting the endless adjustments as seen in every national class and just want you guys to go away. Welcome back to RHSC status, like we ever really left. Can we move to a regional rules status and bypass them all together? Just thinking out loud.