No problems, it's going to turn into a philisophical debate.
Let's start a little out of order here and address this one. A big one.
This statement is out-and-out false. The elephant in the room here is the Honda CRX: you have decisively comp-adjusted this car. Ergo, the process is in place for it to be done for other cars. Horse out of the barn, cat out of the bag, Pandora's box, whatever allusion/metaphor you want to use. It's already a done deal.
Please don't counter that it's a "unique" situation and 'that car would be over-dominant at 1100 pounds' or "how'd you like to race against that car". I agree with you there, that it would be dominant, but that's not the point. The POINT is that comp adjustments ARE done, and this is the one big example that I'm currently aware of.
Sorry, you are wrong. Just plain wrong. Or maybe your definition of a comp adjustment is different than mine. When the CRX's weight got changed, it was one of 16 cars. Those 16 were a result of a myriad of cars that HADN'T been run through the process, getting run through the process. It was all done in an effort to set the bar back to zero. To be fair to those cars like your that were getting classed using a process and getting weight set. Neon, SE-R, NX2000 were among the first IIRC. Well low and behold, when the process was used - as it is used for everyone - some cars popped up real light and some popped up real heavy. Those cars were reset to their process weight. You say a comp adjustment, I say a re-evaluation using newly set standards to be used going forward. But this has been explained many times before.
So, since it's already happening, there's nothing - other than ITAC and CRB backbone in willing to be honest with the membership - to keep it from being hard-codified.
Sorry, disagree. It was a one-time 'reset' that was done when a classification process was FINALLY developed. No preceident setter IMHO.
In order to encourage competition of specific vehicles, such as the AW11, you need to offer them a carrot, an incentive. Most cars that are in ITA today showed flashes of brilliance even before full prep, such as the handling potential of the CRX and Miata, the power potential of the NX2000, and the overall goodness of the Integra. Each of these examples showed promise prior to someone sinking in a sheizhole of money. As of right now, the MR2 does not have that.
and...
So, toss them a carrot, see what happens, with the listed caveat that if shown to be excessive it will be dialed back in the future. Ergo, instead of asking them to prove their negative, you're giving them the opportunity to prove your positive.
Here is where we come together - sort of. Excluding our polar opposites on whether comp adjustments are being used now, this is something the membership should consider and weigh in on. DO WE WANT TO OFFER CARROTS to certain cars in order to incent people to develop them? I could be on board with this, in theory, but we would also have to agree that should that carrot prove to create an overdog, it has to be taken away as you have stated.
Wait a sec: you do this already, but only on the positive side! How do you know my NX2000 can't actually put out 175 horsepower? Have you actually seen my car get dyno'd? Were you there when Kessler was building the engine and potentially chose to leave out some mods for fear of getting one of those non-existent comp adjustments? Have you actually seen my suspension design in detail, and verified I can't do more? Were you present at all test days to ensure I can't significantly run faster than I already am?
Nope - you are wrong. What example do you have where we have made a change without a pile of evidence from multiple sources all verifying each other? Do I believe your car makes a ton of power? Sure but I refuse to recommend a change to it based on one claim. I can't verify you aren't cheating or haven't fudged the numbers...so why would I accept a positive. Do I believe your car is out of process WRT power? You bet...but that means NOTHING when trying to validate it.
[quote]Of course not. So, why is it you're so willing to accept positives, yet so loathe to accept negatives?[/quote]
Not sure you have given an example of an out of order willingness to accept a positive and not a negative. So far, we have been talking about three cars that only singular data points exist. The BMW, the MR2 and your car. All that have not had changes made.
Bottom line: you (ITAC/CRdon't have the resources to verify all claims. You just can't do it. Therefore, you should be as willing to accept negative comments as positive ones, yet you choose to cherry-pick what you wish to accept/believe.
See above.
And you've personally reviewed all aspects of that car to ensure it's 100% completely and totally legal? You know for a fact that this one single example is truly an all-out 100% legal possibility, with no illegal removal of any weight? (No insult intended to Peter, I'm simply using it as an example.)
Of course not. Yet you are quick to accept this example as "proof" of possibility while ignoring numerous other claims of impossibility. What's up wid dat?
The point is (and again it's a flaw) that we don't make a move until we have enough evidence. Unfortunatly, the 'non' move is also a 'no' - which is a move in reality. So it's not so much acceptance of one over the other, its that there are two conflicting data points - so you stick with your assumptions until you have enough data to feel like you can make the right choice. Seems very logical to me.
I understand that, but doesn't that prove my point? Why would Jake spend the money to try and do an all-out IT effort - and thus get moved to PTE or D - when 1) there's no reason to believe the end result would change in ITA and 2) he doesn't need to make those changes to compete effectively in NASA PTF?
Toss him a carrot, Andy, and you might get your answer.
And this is where we are looking at a philisophical change in direction. How do we decide what cars get the carrot? Outline that in writing for me so I can forward it to the people who we tell their cars are hitting the Bullseye of the class they are in now...like the guys who just sent us a letter asking us to move the ITA Neon to ITB with just 100 more lbs @ 2550 because he hasn't seen any win yet.
Yet another poor example. Both NASA and PCA tossed that car a bone with their spec series, encouraging people to do 100% builds on the car. With that encouragement, you have hard data to use for deciding who well the car will perform.
Actually no. If you were familiar with the rules you would know that these classes are much more restictive than IT in terms of engine prep. There are many Porsche guys who have sent in data for IT builds.
With the AW11 you gots squat. Rumor, innuendo, expectations, cold formulas. But really no hard data.
Carrot.
No argument there...that is why we go with the assumption. You wanna start throwing carrots? Fine, lets debate the parameters on who, what, and when.
But, yet, you're willing - indignant, even - to use "one guy's data" to stand pat on weight...?
Sorry you see it that way. Explanation above. Two conflicting data points does not a change make.
A HORRID, HORRID - and terribly insulting - example, Andy. In "NASCAR, GAC, SWC" the competitors are being PAID BY MANUFACTURERS to prove that negative.
Easy on the drama. Insulting? No. It's just how others do it. Even the other classes within the SCCA do it. IT just happens to be a harder ship to turn in that regard - and I would submit that is a large portion of the stability and popularity of the class.
So - do we want to start throwing carrots? Bones? Incentives? Maybe another thread is in order.
(Edit - sorry for the formatting - I am trying to track down the error - bolded to make it easier.)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks