July FasTrack posted

[Andy Bettencourt]

You know, it's AMAZING how walking away from the keyboard for three days, and actually going racing, can go a long way towards making you simply NOT CARE about this drivel. Truly.

But, at the risk of stirring it up again - I REALLY do not intend to - I have an honest series of questions. No hidden agenda, no attacks, no ulterior intent. I'm truly curious.

Andy, you state the reason we got the weights with the Miata was because the '94 was classified first and the '96+ followed. Yo comprendez. However - and think about this and answer me honestly - in YOUR OPINION:

1. If the '96/97 had been classified first in the vacuum - as the '94/95 was apparently done - Would the weight of the cars still be the same, or would they be ~105# heavier?
2. If not, why the inconsistency?
3. If so, why hold out the above as the reason they're at the lower weight?
4. What if they were classified at the same exact time; what would you have used as the base hp?

Note that "I dunno" is a perfect answer to this hypothetical question. What I'm looking for here is consistency of your thought process or to determine if I'm misunderstanding. - Greg
[/b]

I numbered your questions for reference...all IMHO.

1. If the 96/97 were classified first, I am confident that it would have been done at the 133hp level, then the decision would have to have been made whether to seperate the 128hp car into it's own spec line - or to combine it. Citing the same 'the classifications would look stupid because the cars are the same in IT prep', I would have voted to combine them at the first classification weight (the higher) becasue it would have been already in the books. Knowing what I know about the power levels of the motors and why they got there, the classification would be a bit heavy but that is a sacrifice I think we have to make given the granularity of the process - and in the name of trying to make the GCR make sense.

2. Not applicable

3. I am not sure I understand what you are asking. As has been stated ad-nauseum, the classification was done on the 128hp car. When the 133hp car was requested, we looked at the cars and knew that the only difference was a free item per the rules. In the same thought process, it was voted to combine at the lower weight because that one was already done. Frankly, people who know these motors will tell you that using the 128 number is a much better representation of a proper classification than a hp rating from ECU tuning. But that is just mental suport for a decision that made sense to us. Like I said in many posts, I would do it for any car where the situation was similar. I still feel my TR8 example is VERY valid. Early car comes in at X and gets classed, later car gets requested at 5 more hp because of a different carb - which will be eliminated anywany under the allowances, it is logical to me...just as if the reverse happened and it turned out 'heavy'.

4. If they were classed at the same time I would have voted for the 133hp number to be used. 'Local knowledge' of the motors aside, the groups shouldn't be proactively nit-picking IMHO. But since this was a done deal on the lower side, we applied what we thought was common sense. You may not agree with the result, but I do feel the 'thought' process is consistant. It's a rare situation for sure but as stated if it came up again with any other car, I would go that way.

So in the end, if you look at this with all the facts, I feel the resultant combination doesn't ACTUALLY put the 1.8 Miata light, it nails it per the process. If it were classed using later numbers, it would have been heavy - but the timing was the main factor dictating that decision now that you have made me play it out in my head. The result is not a 'soft' classification but an accurate one based on timing and the knowledge that forced us to draw upon. Could we be wrong? You bet. But we stand by our decision.

That is the best I can explain it.

In addition, I communicated through official channels to the CRB last year about the car and my build. SInce the cars was RIGHT ON it's weight limit for the cage rules, I asked if the car could be increased in weight should the car enter consideration for a PCA. The official reply was 'yes, there is precident for that'.

[tnord]

i have never wanted to start writing 5 figure checks to buy the needed equipment to make my car fast so bad as i do right now. i just may even fly down for the ARRC, and do my best to help out every miata i can find in hopes of one winning and consequently kicking huge wads of sand in everyones already irritable vagina.

[Greg Amy]

That is the best I can explain it.[/b]

I sincerely appreciate your honesty and consistency. At least we disagree for the right reasons. - GA

[ddewhurst]

Racerlinn, I got plenty of beer but more nuts are required.

[Knestis]

...and it reinforces what I had already come to think - that expediency was the ultimate factor.

Since the weight was already set for some of the cars that would end up on that spec line, it was decided to not stir up a hornets' nest by appearing to add weight to existing cars, to make the system work based on the later ones.

I can completely see how that would have been badly received - there would have been a lot of shrieking from people who had just committed to the ITA Miata - but ultimately, I submit that the downside of this kind of decision eventually outweighs the immediate bitching that would probably have resulted, and then subsided.

At the end of the day CONSISTENCY of application of the process is going to be of more value to the category than will any number of instances of "being right" that might arise from diddling with it. Next time this choice comes up, maybe the ITAC can jam through the option that seems harder at the time.

K