A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[gran racing]

Exactly the point. Without this type of information gathering tool, we'll never know and we're back to a guessing game and pure speculation.

[Knestis]

Exactly the point. Without this type of information gathering tool, we'll never know and we're back to a guessing game and pure speculation.

NO.

Without that "information" (which is flawed), we accept that we're OK with not being perfect, and that other factors will contribute more to on-track competitiveness - like the list above - than do the choice of car and its resultant race weight.

Or we don't accept that first principle. That's what I'm coming to understand here - that most of you agree with the CRB on this issue, and actually WANT the ability to pick and choose race weights based on how competitive you think cars are, from watching onesy-twosy examples on track.

Tell me clearly that's the consensus but don't bitch about the lack of "repeatable and transparent" because you can NOT have both. You get the IT you want.

K

[IPRESS]

Kirk, Please don't take this wrong, as I mean this as constructive..... but have you ever thought that maybe one of the reasons that you guys are having trouble getting your way with the PTB is because of the tone and attitude of your messages? Posts like the one above don't gain a side (any side) support. Jeff may disagree with what you or some of the others think, but he (so far) hasn't questioned your thought process. Damn, try a little sugar and spice. It might help sell the ITAC position.

Now on the question at hand. (or the one this thing has come around to)
Is the process by itself the answer?
Evidently the PTB (or at least the CR has not been convinced of this.
I think they realize that this is a sport with a human element. So far as bad as the present system seems to be IT has been able to cure most of its problems when one has arisen (thats a big word for me.) Now with the updated V2 to help out maybe big problems will be less likely to jump up.)
I think I will start another thread to get some info on problem cars.

[Ron Earp]

Looks like we're waaaaay off thread topic for many pages. Maybe the last few pages of posts should be merged over with the "Big Picture IT" thread?

[gran racing]

Exactly the point. Without this type of information gathering tool, we'll never know and we're back to a guessing game and pure speculation.

Kirk, you misinterpreted this and it could just have been due to poor wording on my part. What I meant was if on-track performance were used to classify cars and other information were not available, then we'd be back to a guessing game. I am NOT advocating using on-track peformance for more than a trigger to look at things closer.

[Knestis]

Kirk, you misinterpreted this and it could just have been due to poor wording on my part. What I meant was if on-track performance were used to classify cars and other information were not available, then we'd be back to a guessing game. I am NOT advocating using on-track peformance for more than a trigger to look at things closer.

I apologize, Dave - I read your post exactly backward. Back pronoun antecedent action on my part.

But I'm not going to apologize for being frustrated by this situation. Maybe I'm as PO'd at myself as anything or anyone else, for letting myself believe that we could actually get to a place where the category was, to the very best of our abilities, protected from the standard Club classing and spec'ing silliness that I've been watching since 1979.

We were THIS CLOSE ------> <------- to having the ITAC's documentation of the practices we use in their final form. Internally, we used the term "codified" - to put it in writing and make it a law. We put a TON of time into looking at options; collecting feedback; and rejecting ideas that we ultimately couldn't resolve in a way that was repeatable, explainable, and confidence-inspiring to members (like dealing with torque in a different way).

I don't have to be politic. I'm a crumudgeon and I view my role as being crumudeony. Andy does an amazing job herding the ITAC cats and understanding the political landscape and Club practices. We would all be well and truly screwed without him doing his job, but someone has to kick over the anthill to find out what's inside.

I've gone back and forth with JJJ and while I don't agree with him on a lot of things, he is a damned smart dude. He understands the scientific method and researchy stuff. If he's going to look at an example through a straw to cherry pick logic to support a position, he's going to do it well - but I'm going to call him on it.

K

(Sorry, Ron)

[gran racing]

Kirk, not that this will make you feel any better but you're not the only one whose frustrated. It seems like the more involved I become with this club the more annoyed I become.

[DavidM]

We were THIS CLOSE ------> <------- to having the ITAC's documentation of the practices we use in their final form. Internally, we used the term "codified" - to put it in writing and make it a law. We put a TON of time into looking at options; collecting feedback; and rejecting ideas that we ultimately couldn't resolve in a way that was repeatable, explainable, and confidence-inspiring to members (like dealing with torque in a different way).

Did I miss something? Are you guys saying the CRB, BOD, whoever is rejecting the process? I would definitely have an issue with that and would write in to support the ITAC and its work. I think a lot of thought has gone into the process and while not perfect, it's pretty darn good. I think most of the debate is about how to deal with the exceptions.

David

[Ed Funk]

[quote=Knestis;295183] Back pronoun antecedent action on my part.




K

WTF!! Shit I've forgotten a lot of High School English in 45 years, but don't think I've ever heard of that one!!

[IPRESS]

I apologize, Dave - I read your post exactly backward. Back pronoun antecedent action on my part.

But I'm not going to apologize for being frustrated by this situation. Maybe I'm as PO'd at myself as anything or anyone else, for letting myself believe that we could actually get to a place where the category was, to the very best of our abilities, protected from the standard Club classing and spec'ing silliness that I've been watching since 1979.

We were THIS CLOSE ------> <------- to having the ITAC's documentation of the practices we use in their final form. Internally, we used the term "codified" - to put it in writing and make it a law. We put a TON of time into looking at options; collecting feedback; and rejecting ideas that we ultimately couldn't resolve in a way that was repeatable, explainable, and confidence-inspiring to members (like dealing with torque in a different way).

I don't have to be politic. I'm a crumudgeon and I view my role as being crumudeony. Andy does an amazing job herding the ITAC cats and understanding the political landscape and Club practices. We would all be well and truly screwed without him doing his job, but someone has to kick over the anthill to find out what's inside.

I've gone back and forth with JJJ and while I don't agree with him on a lot of things, he is a damned smart dude. He understands the scientific method and researchy stuff. If he's going to look at an example through a straw to cherry pick logic to support a position, he's going to do it well - but I'm going to call him on it.

K

(Sorry, Ron)

Point Taken ..... and you are more an internet curmudgeon and far less grumpy in person!
I think that frustration runs on both sides of the issue. I understand that when something is worked on for such a long time and is not accepted as planned, that it can make you POed. Hopefully all the alphabet groups can find a middle ground.

[jjjanos]

I've gone back and forth with JJJ and while I don't agree with him on a lot of things, he is a damned smart dude. He understands the scientific method and researchy stuff. If he's going to look at an example through a straw to cherry pick logic to support a position, he's going to do it well - but I'm going to call him on it.

I am going to pick the outliers to illustrate the problem with a 100% objective process. The process is nothing more than a model making a prediction as to the "correct" weight of the car and it's based on a lot of assumptions that work, in general. It's when the general != the specific that causes a problem.

The problem in this particular instance is that you've got observable data (of quality I don't know - but assume it's good quality data) that says the model misses. In this instance, if you use the prediction as your forecast of the correct weight, you'll create an over dog. (If it said add weight, you'd just be messing with the one car not an entire class.).