A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[Knestis]

1) no garauntee of competitiveness
2) choose your weapon wisely

risk > benefit of continual monkey fucking with the class.

And you clearly include efforts to establish and use a repeatable, transparent process to specify cars in that category.

Okay, then.

Seriously. I may join you on the links, Travis, if this idea is as popular more broadly, as it seems to be in this community.

K

[tnord]

And you clearly include efforts to establish and use a repeatable, transparent process to specify cars in that category.

Okay, then.

i've never opposed that effort.

PS - the internet is a terrible place; specifically forums. nothing good has ever come from them.

[Knestis]

i've never opposed that effort. ...

But THAT'S pretty damned much the ENTIRE substance of what the ITAC has done, in terms of making changes - at least in the 20 months I've been on it...!!

What "monkey" activity is it, precisely, that you want them to stop doing...??

** Standardizing how individual car spec line make/model examples with more than one stock power values are handled?

** Categorizing cars based on realistic estimates of whether resulting weights are achievable?

** Adhering to a set of default protocols to estimate IT-prep power potential, absent any compelling evidence to do otherwise; rather than guessing picking numbers based on unknown biases?

** Requiring ITAC members to go on record individually, regarding their confidence in any evidence considered within those protocols?

** Requiring a supermajority of ITAC members expressing high levels of confidence in a non-standard power factor, before subsequent steps can even proceed?

** Using a percentage subtractor for FWD rather than blocks of weight, with percentages tailored to each class based on objective computer modeling rather than members' hopes and fears?

** Limiting and specifying the number and size of adders/subtractors based on physical attributes of cars (e.g., brake size) relative to other cars in the same class, rather than allowing open-ended adjustments of any amount, based on expectations of competitiveness (e.g., "I heard they stop real good")...?

** Eliminating all other opportunities to apply subjective judgments to influence classification and specification?

** Requiring a second final up or down vote, with abstentions discouraged; and documenting that final vote?

** Eliminating the codified practice of subjectively reviewing - and allowing ITAC members to change ITCS weights - if the spec resulting from the process "is not acceptable."

** Reporting recommendations to the CRB to the closest 5 pounds, rather than "leaving it alone" if a particular car isn't found to be more than 100# off...??

Seriously - which of these existential practices is it that needs to end...?

K

EDIT - Sorry, I forgot "use all of the above in the same way in every case without question, in response to any member's request to do so." I'll bet that's the one that has everyone upset.

[lateapex911]

i've never opposed that effort.

PS - the internet is a terrible place; specifically forums. nothing good has ever come from them.

I SO disagree with that.

This board has educated lots of people, and IT is better SOLEY because of THIS board. If it wasn't for conversations and discussions, (some might even call them fights!) that happened here 5 or so years ago, much of what the ITAC has done to create a consistent and repeatable system to classify cars would NOT exist. Nor would the ability to balance the classes from their previous dorked up state. I rarely see the owner of this board, but when I do, I always thank him for his generosity.

My thoughts.....I've stayed out for a bit as requested, but..

I find it humerous how people love to compare washer bottles with ECUs.
The simple truth is, allowing ECU mods is the consitent play. Carbed cars were always allowed jetting, air bleed and other such changes. When they were assigned weights, it was assumed that the builders would take advantage of that allowance. Allowing ECU cars to do the same -alter the fuel curve- is no different than what was done in 84. The basic premise didn't change, the technology did. yes, they are not exactly the same, the carb and ECU, but you get the point. In an ideal word, yea, stock ECUs would be neat, but, that would mean that perhaps 30 percent of the cars classed today would be essentially un raceable due to rev limits speed limiters and other constrictions in the stock software. And that's only going to get worse.

So, being "anti creep" in that area was really being rather backwards. For those that feel ECU cars have been getting a break, remember, the Process assumes a full tilt ECu will be used. The good news there is that yu can get great performance from ECUs that are very reasonable.

Regarding Ron's list:

Washer bottles. sigh, who cares. If you can't find the stock one, don't lose sleep over it. or put a non stock one in. Move on.
Windsheild Wipers: The country has places where the water from the sky is common. They need wipers. So we all have them. Fair is fair, and even prep is a good thing.
Heater core: See above. Why should geography decide who gets a better car?
Headlight removal. Gran pulls his, gets a lot of cold air. Stevens pulls his, and his battery is right there. Oh well, no extra hp for him!
And so on

[tnord]

there was a repeatable process in play long ago.

what i want to stop is EVERYTHING. like bowie and others said, just leave it all alone. be it by fate, dumb luck, or sheer brilliance the first run of "the process" got it all pretty dang close. yes, i look through the listings and see weights i think are wrong, but i'd rather have a couple cars out there i feel are at significant advantage a few select tracks than run the risk of fucking up a good thing by getting way too granular.

when you list cars within 5lbs, change weight breaks and penalties to a specified percent, use 15% and 18% driveline loss assumptions when reviewing power figures, and continually change the weights of a number of other vehicles it sends the message and sets the expectation of the general IT population to a level of precision the process isn't anywhere near capable of. the process is just a big fancy guess. it's like the black-scholes model in finance, it's a big formula with a lot of factors that look well thought out (and they usually are) and impressive to the casual observer, but when you get right down to it it's still a big fat guess.

and as you're starting to sense kirk, once the population gets an idea in their head, and that idea starts to gain some momentum, watch out (btw...it's the same feeling i got with the whole miata weight thing).

i think the entire ITAC should take some time off to play golf, that way nothing can be messed with.

PS - that whole forum comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

[lawtonglenn]

.


I think we should be able to run whatever fairway woods we want,
and since the process has yet to be run on the gas-powered
club car, the electric club car should be assessed a provisional
weight penalty equal to one case of Titleist Pro V1x, bolted
securely to the bag stand at the rear....

And as to those soft spikes........

.

[Bill Miller]

PS - the internet is a terrible place; specifically forums. nothing good has ever come from them.

More evidence that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. I guess you don't consider ITR a 'good' thing. I can tell you for a fact that what ended up being the proposal and initial classifications for ITR was developed right here on this very board.

Go buy your damned clubs already.