ITS e36 BMW

[Bill Miller]

Exactly again. We are in such a sweet spot right now in ITS with so many chassis that have just slight advantages at different tracks. 944s, 323, E30, Mustang, RX7, Miata, 240/260z, 280z, 280zx, 300zx, 240sx, TR8, Corrado, Prelude, Integra, Civic all can and do run up front.

The question is how to keep it that way as long as we can.

Until someone comes along and makes a big enough stink about why you're (the ITAC) not using 'what we know' to correct the cars that are documented to make more than a 25% gain.

[JeffYoung]

Until someone comes along and makes a big enough stink about why you're (the ITAC) not using 'what we know' to correct the cars that are documented to make more than a 25% gain.

Which is why I raised this issues...because that stink is starting to be made.

[Knestis]

...at which point the stink may be ignored. The Process MAY incorporate "what we [think we] know," but it does not HAVE to.

Kirk

EDIT - Bleah!!

[Bill Miller]

...at which point the stink may be ignored. The Process MAY incorporate "what we [think we] know," but it does not HAVE to.

Kirk

EDIT - Bleah!!

With all due respect Kirk, if that happens, the whole thing is pretty much out the window. The whole idea behind using 'what we know', was to address the cases where there was a significant deviation (up or down) from the expected 25% gain. If you've got documentation out there that supports that you've got cars making significantly more than expected hp, and the ITAC chooses not to use it, what's the point of even having a process? It's really no different than it was in the old days.

Look at it from the perspective of the new guy that reads the ops manual, knows that the Borgward GT makes closer to a 35% gain, but is spec'd based on a 25% gain. He knows that there's documentation that supports the 35% gain, provides it to the ITAC, and asks for a re-process. In the end, he gets told "Nope, but thanks for playing. Please accept our lovely consolation prizes." How is that any different than the old perception that certain cars got preferential treatment because of who was driving them, or who that driver happened to know?

Or better, how do you handle the case of the guy who's car got re-processed based on 'what we know', and got a nice 150# lead trophy for his effort, but you don't process other cars based on the same information, when it is out there?

I guess it's a question of staying true to the first principles of an objective classification process or pissing off a group of people because they were able to wring more out of their cars than anyone thought was possible?

I totally agree that it's a really tough spot, and I don't envy Jeff, Chip, or anyone else on the ITAC, for having to deal with it.

[Knestis]

Allow me to be less flippant and restate: The stink can be ignored if the there isn't a preponderance of data in which the ITAC has a high degree of confidence. It's semantics but "what we [think we] know" should get applied based on the data, not the volume of the complaining about the data.

Y'all will no doubt recognize that I don't have a lot of confidence that we ever truly know what think we know...

K

[Bill Miller]

Allow me to be less flippant and restate: The stink can be ignored if the there isn't a preponderance of data in which the ITAC has a high degree of confidence. It's semantics but "what we [think we] know" should get applied based on the data, not the volume of the complaining about the data.

Y'all will no doubt recognize that I don't have a lot of confidence that we ever truly know what think we know...

K

That, I agree with completely.

[Chip42]

Y'all will no doubt recognize that I don't have a lot of confidence that we ever truly know what think we know...

Noted. I agree that the "top" is usually unknown, but the average can be determined. if the "fast cars" are known, with confidence, to be making AT LEAST some gain greater that 25%, then reprocessing is "correct". Jeff's proposal is interesting in that it seeks to reset ITS based on these cars' current weight, their known gain, and a new weight factor to make the math work.

likely truths:
1) the ACTUAL gain of the top runners will remain cloaked in secrecy, so will liekly still be a few ticks above "what we know" and maintain the advantage of development.
1b) newly developed cars which exceed their expected gain will need to be tracked dilligently, and the understanding of adjustment should be made clear to soften the "lead trophy" feelings.

2) the power to weight gap to ITR will shrink, likely forcing more of these changes to reset R in relation to S. guys who can't drop ballast will be unamused (RX8, celica). I think the gap back to A will be fine, and on track it will remian unchanged (top cars stay at current weight).

3)it will change the tweener car status for the top half of IT. cars that become too light in ITR might be sent to ITS "heavy" assuming gain potentials in the 25% range are real peaks. guys who built cars to run in a certain group will most likely NOT want this.

4) we still will not have addressed the looming realities of modern stock drivetrains: sequential transmissions, diesels, direct injection gas engines, turbos, and combinations of these, which could force FURTHER adjustments to IT's weight and classing structure in order to stay relevant. we have ~3-5 years before this becomes a REAL problem.

[lawtonglenn]

...but is spec'd based on a 25% gain. He knows that there's documentation that supports the 35% gain, provides it to the ITAC, and asks for a re-process. In the end, he gets told "Nope, but thanks for playing. Please accept our lovely consolation prizes."

um... why would anyone ASK for an INCREASED weight reprocess on a car they were preparing?

.

[Bill Miller]

um... why would anyone ASK for an INCREASED weight reprocess on a car they were preparing?

.

Nobody said it was his car.

[Knestis]

um... why would anyone ASK for an INCREASED weight reprocess on a car they were preparing?

.

Because they thought it might be good for the category to be more accurately balanced...?

Kirk (who requested that the weight of HIS car be "re-run" knowing that the Process would spit out a CORRECT WEIGHT higher than what was required)

EDIT - Frankly I think anyone who plays weight games or uses politicking to gain an advantage, rather than trying to win in fairly classed cars is a is a big, fat wuss.

K

[StephenB]

is a big, fat wuss.

K

Hahahah I couldn't resist... so they are fat and can't get their car down to process weight so in fear of others building the same car they raise the weight of the car so they are equal to others that may build and run the same type of car? TOTALLY kidding but I thought it was funny I know htat is now what you implied at all!


Stephen

PS: I think this has been a good healthy discusion. Glad it's happening, even if nothing changes at all, at least things are being discussed and hashed out in a civil pro-active way!