A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[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

[JeffYoung]

Reject is probably a bit strong. They have a lot of questions about what we are doing. But, a letter from membership in support of the process would be helpful at this point.

Thanks on that David, the only 240sx guy I know with brake issues....lol...glad you got things sorted.

You going to try to get to CMP next spring?

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

[DavidM]

Reject is probably a bit strong. They have a lot of questions about what we are doing. But, a letter from membership in support of the process would be helpful at this point.

Thanks on that David, the only 240sx guy I know with brake issues....lol...glad you got things sorted.

You going to try to get to CMP next spring?

Heh. My issues are always different. Everyone else has brakes that fail. Me, I get brakes that stick on. At least I managed to get my two races in.

I'll make it back to CMP eventually. I like going there. Probably won't be next Spring, though. I need to get my ass in gear and finish the new shell.

[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.

[IPRESS]

Ed great sig!

David, from what I can gather the PTB has some doubt as the Process being the only determination. They (and I am just speculating) and some others in IT aren't convinced that the Process is accurate. For some cars it may be accurate but isn't when used on others.
One other thing to keep in mind, some of the people making the call at the next step have a strong IT background...they are IT people and IMHO as smart about the subject as most any on this forum. I have to believe that they want the best for the class and the club.
They deserve the same respect in their opinions as the posters and ITAC guys get from this community.

[erlrich]

I have a question - is there a non-spec (and I would include NASCAR in the "spec" category) professional series that completely ignores on-track performance when setting weights, i.e. uses only a formulaic process to evaluate cars? I realize the differences between most pro racing series and IT are many and great, but I'm just wondering if anyone has ever had success in classing cars the way we want to.

[frnkhous]

Ok, I wanna move in a slightly different direction here. For all those who want to be able to remove washer bottles, How do you suggest allowing the removal of these items? I'm still not convinced this is anything but leading down the road toward prod. These are not safety issues which means people will be spending money or time removing horns, washer bottles, heater cores(which may actually be worse for safety) etc. and what is the gain to the class? A few people such as jeff young don't have to search for 100 dollar used washer bottles. I don't see how allowing removal does anything to improve the class. But to that end are we talking specific allowances, and are you going to add something to the list everytime somebody finds a new dohicky on there race car that isn't needed if your not street driving? Not the washerbottle removal itself but I think this could very fast lead down a slippery slope if your intent is to allow removal of "street" equipment generically I can think off all kinds of things that would suddenly become removable. The wiring is also a slippery slope, I bet I could remove a nice chunk of weight if I rewired my car specifically with what I needed. Some newer cars would likely be over 10 pounds but at what cost? Wiring can get expensive really fast if the goal is to reduce weight with no rules. All fuses, relays, etc. can be replaced with a single box weighing less than a typical fuse box, I believe the price of those things is between 6 and 10k dollars if I remember right. It might have been as high as 14k. More than most It cars are selling for these days. I'm not suggesting this would become necessary, simply pointing out extremes somebody could go to for being able to ballast a car differently/remove weight. Would it now not qualify as a 100% build if you didn't do such things?

[spawpoet]

Ok, I wanna move in a slightly different direction here. For all those who want to be able to remove washer bottles, How do you suggest allowing the removal of these items? I'm still not convinced this is anything but leading down the road toward prod. These are not safety issues which means people will be spending money or time removing horns, washer bottles, heater cores(which may actually be worse for safety) etc. and what is the gain to the class? A few people such as jeff young don't have to search for 100 dollar used washer bottles. I don't see how allowing removal does anything to improve the class. But to that end are we talking specific allowances, and are you going to add something to the list everytime somebody finds a new dohicky on there race car that isn't needed if your not street driving? Not the washerbottle removal itself but I think this could very fast lead down a slippery slope if your intent is to allow removal of "street" equipment generically I can think off all kinds of things that would suddenly become removable. The wiring is also a slippery slope, I bet I could remove a nice chunk of weight if I rewired my car specifically with what I needed. Some newer cars would likely be over 10 pounds but at what cost? Wiring can get expensive really fast if the goal is to reduce weight with no rules. All fuses, relays, etc. can be replaced with a single box weighing less than a typical fuse box, I believe the price of those things is between 6 and 10k dollars if I remember right. It might have been as high as 14k. More than most It cars are selling for these days. I'm not suggesting this would become necessary, simply pointing out extremes somebody could go to for being able to ballast a car differently/remove weight. Would it now not qualify as a 100% build if you didn't do such things?

Is the allowance to remove engine trim pieces leading down the road to production? I agree with your concern about wiring allowances, and glass would worry me too because you can see a path people will chase in their builds with these items. To me a wash bottle (and the rest of Ron's list) is no more threatening than removing engine bay trim which is allowed. On our own car we are actually trying to get our heater core, wipers, and headlights working again (all disabled or removed by PO), so I don't have anything to gain. Just don't see ANY danger in removing these specific items. That said I respect the position many on the ITAC have on this, and given their dedication to preserving what IT seems to mean to all of us I'm happy with whatever they want to do.

[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.).