SCCA National Convention

[IPRESS]

Andy, I don't disagree with anything you posted. (other than one CRB person... I talk with three of them sometimes, but that isn't important.) I just want to see movement on the issue instead of a stalemate.
This is a question for no particular car, just informational.
Andy what DID you guys do when a car going through the process just didn't work out?
(I am sure it has been covered before, but I ask you because you usually are good about repeating with out malice!) If I am going to talk with CRB persons about it I would like to be sure of this part of things.
Thanks, and I am trying to be more open to this, but not sure democracy works in running a race group.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy what DID you guys do when a car going through the process just didn't work out?
(I am sure it has been covered before, but I ask you because you usually are good about repeating with out malice!) If I am going to talk with CRB persons about it I would like to be sure of this part of things.
Thanks, and I am trying to be more open to this, but not sure democracy works in running a race group.

Well if you could maybe give me a car to tell you the history on, I will. I can't think of a car that went through the process ended up 'not working out' - REALLY. Previous monster overdogs like the CRX were all fixed VIA the process, not created by it. That is one of the curious things about this whole issue. IT people know that all we are trying to do is get cars CLOSE - and they accept that some may be better than others in small ways.

To talk conceptually, we would see a car that was classed start to 'run off the front' (to use a CRB term). Because we have NO WAY of quantifying why, we start to dig around for errors in the inputs to the process. More than likely, it was an error in the estimated power it could make in IT trim. A 5% error might not create a dog like this but 10% might. So if we could validate that the power estimate was indeed a mistake, we would document that new power level, vote on it and place it into the process for a new weight - then make that recomendation per the PCA clause in the ITCS.

The key here is that it is all based in SOMETHING concrete. Not "lets add 100lbs and evaluate" like is done in the other classes. I hold firm to the concept that in IT, with all our types of cars, drivetrain layouts, suspension designs, prep levels, driver skillsets, etc...that you will never be able to assign weight based on lap times. It's a 'trigger' to look at something that was an error, but not something that should be micromanaged.

Sorry if that doesn't answer...how can I be more specific? I will try.

[gran racing]

Would the S2000 fit into that category?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Would the S2000 fit into that category?

What category?

[gran racing]

This...

Andy what DID you guys do when a car going through the process just didn't work out?

I realize that within the process, there were ways to adjust things if it didn't fit into the straight equasion. I was thinking that providing Mac some background would help explain how the process has flexiblity. "Not working out" is probably the correct term for it, but from what I understand an exception % gain was used (and rightfully so). Just thinking of an example which might help Mac and the CRB understand it better.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This...



I realize that within the process, there were ways to adjust things if it didn't fit into the straight equasion. I was thinking that providing Mac some background would help explain how the process has flexiblity. "Not working out" is probably the correct term for it, but from what I understand an exception % gain was used (and rightfully so). Just thinking of an example which might help Mac and the CRB understand it better.

Gotcha Dave. And that uncovers a very common misconception with the Process. Some people can't seem to understand that is is NOT a formula. The S2000 was classed at 15% because conventional thought processes told us that a NA 2.0 with a specific output of 120hp per liter could not make 25% gains with whay we are allowed to do. The same dynamics allow the ITAC to make other estimates other than the 25% that is used as a baseline.

So again, it's not that the Process didn't work out for the S2000, the Process actually WORKS for the S2000. Its dynamic, not ridged. Just because we use 25% as a baseline for first consideration when there is no data on the table, doesn't mean at all that is what we end up using.

[lateapex911]

To further the thought process, cars like the S2000 are obviously unique. Research has been done to arrive at the 15% estimate. Classing it at a rigid 25% would be silly, and would be like not classing it at all. Nobody with an ounce of common sense would spend the time and money to build a car that would be so overweight.

If a car like that were to have rolled into the ITAC late this summer, it would have been tabled, and a member or members of the ITAC would have conducted research. They would bring their findings and evidence back to the meeting, and the entire ITAC would have reviewed, challenged, and ultimately voted their confidence, person by person on that presentation of evidence. If the vote showed high confidence across the board, the multiplier would be used to then run in the process. After that normal adders would be reviewed and calculated, and a race weight determined.

Within the System, there are procedures on what to do when strange things like that pop up. Cars with multiple HP ratings, cars with odd engine architecture, cars that are know to make less than advertised power, etc. Those procedures exist so the Process can remain flexible, but be applied in a consistent, repeatable and transparent manner.