you're making ne nervous kirk.
i feel like "we're" going to find a way to help out certain cars until they start winning races and are on a witch hunt for others and will back into a justification to knock them down however "we" can.
<_<
FWD vs RWD: Adders, Subtractors, and Weight, Oh my...!
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
you're making ne nervous kirk.
i feel like "we're" going to find a way to help out certain cars until they start winning races and are on a witch hunt for others and will back into a justification to knock them down however "we" can.
<_<
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Please run the 1.8 ITA Miatas thru your new and improved process.
The two new 'proceedures' are for FWD and torque 'adders'. Neither of which affect any rwd cars in the ITCS. DW adders in ITS, ITA, ITB and ITC remain at +50.
I really like what Kirk and Josh are bringing to the table in terms of 'math'. I like the new FWD stuff and the torque process we are working through seems to make sense to me too. Trying to eliminate true subjectivity from the process. And the record keeping is awesome.
Last edited:
I asked at the Sandbox and will do so here, too - How do you think that would work?
And frankly, if you REALLY believe that is true, you need to contact the Board and present them with your evidence, 'cause the entire lot of us should get sacked if it is.
On the other hand, if you're just pissing and moaning, you need to do it in a less insulting way.
Truly hurt by this,
K
i didn't mean to be insulting, sorry if it came across that way. for the most part i have nothing but respect for the members of the ITAC, which includes you Kirk.
how i see it could go down is by the general population of IT coming together to campaign to the ITAC that the still subjective power adder is out of whack using any means necessary until the number and subsequent weight is changed. all the while the ITAC would believe 100% that they are doing what is right just the same as with this FWD adjustment by using "what we know."
In order to use a power factor other than a default-across-IT value, the ITAC has to review whatever evidence can be collected, with each member required to record their level of confidence in that evidence. That is then considered in the process if, and only if, we agree that it rises to a sufficient level as a distinct step in the process.
And this is an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of deal - it's necessary for data to make a case for doing anything besides the same exact thing that would apply to any other car under consideration. Not enough evidence? No variation.
The entire process moves forward at that point, with all members required to vote again, this time up or down on the final result. That last step is kind of an anachronism in some ways - I personally think it would be REALLY hard for someone to vote against something that's followed established procedure, but it DOES require that we commit individually to give our support - or lack thereof - for each action.
Members can campaign for anything they want, using "any means possible" (not sure what that means) but we require actual evidence on which to base a trip off the beaten path re: a specific request. And on-track performance, wins, lap times, or other results will NOT be considered to be "evidence."
Now, if it is the judgment of the committee that sufficient evidence to use a power factor other than the standard number DOES exist, we can do that. We do retain the option to apply our collective experience to problems but it's way tougher than it might have been under previous protocols for someone to fudge numbers simply because they think they "know" what they should be.
K
And this is an "innocent until proven guilty" kind of deal - it's necessary for data to make a case for doing anything besides the same exact thing that would apply to any other car under consideration. Not enough evidence? No variation.
The entire process moves forward at that point, with all members required to vote again, this time up or down on the final result. That last step is kind of an anachronism in some ways - I personally think it would be REALLY hard for someone to vote against something that's followed established procedure, but it DOES require that we commit individually to give our support - or lack thereof - for each action.
Members can campaign for anything they want, using "any means possible" (not sure what that means) but we require actual evidence on which to base a trip off the beaten path re: a specific request. And on-track performance, wins, lap times, or other results will NOT be considered to be "evidence."
Now, if it is the judgment of the committee that sufficient evidence to use a power factor other than the standard number DOES exist, we can do that. We do retain the option to apply our collective experience to problems but it's way tougher than it might have been under previous protocols for someone to fudge numbers simply because they think they "know" what they should be.
K
am i correct in thinking that the same procedure was followed that led to the 50, 100, and now % base weight break for FWD cars?
it's meant to mean "lawyering" more or less.
disregarding my overall discomfort with using lapsim......the aforementioned items may not warrant formal review by the ITAC, but they do serve as motivation for the general public to seek out "evidence" that supports their position. through the collective efforts of the IT public a case can be presented that can look convincing, and garners support from the casual observer. political pressure is then upon the ITAC to do something to fix the "problem" via informal (interwebz) and formal (letter writing) avenues. to "give the members what they want" if you will.
this makes me nervous, as it's akin to how i see this thing went down. first it was that the 50lb break wasn't enough, then the 100lb break wasn't enough, then it was that it should be on a % basis, but when that didn't yield the result the FWD guys wanted it changed into higher percentages for each class.
....i had a better response typed up but it was lost.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Trav,
At the end of the day each ITAC member, to a man, will tell you the process is not perfect. Not sure there is ANY classing method in ANY organization that gets it 100% right, hence the consistant changes year to year. What we are looking to do is make sure the WAY we do things is consistant, repeatable and transperant. I think everyone has heard this before.
I have NO problems with a member coming forward with a theory like...hmmm, 'FWD cars seem to be much less prolific in the higher HP classes. I suggest it's because the compensation for their driveline layout is not enough'. OK, interesting. Let's prove it. Especially when what we HAVE been using is effectively a SWAG of 50-50-50-100-100. Simple yes, correct? Who knows.
So then someone introduces some actual simulation data. We look at it, we hash it out and we theorize that 175-150-50-50-0 are much better numbers than what we have been using.
Then we think to ourselves, -175 on a 3000+lb Legend and -175 on a 2500lb Celica doesn't seem equal - or 'right'. So we take those number, convert them to percentages for each class and figure we have something even 'better than our better than before'. Perfect - nope, but something we believe is as good as we can get given the granularity of our process and teh amount that our members want us to actually dork-up the system.
So in the end, it works how I think it should work. Idea, research, vote, reject/accept. EVERY request has some sort of selfish reasoning - but that doesn't discount the potential merits.
At the end of the day each ITAC member, to a man, will tell you the process is not perfect. Not sure there is ANY classing method in ANY organization that gets it 100% right, hence the consistant changes year to year. What we are looking to do is make sure the WAY we do things is consistant, repeatable and transperant. I think everyone has heard this before.
I have NO problems with a member coming forward with a theory like...hmmm, 'FWD cars seem to be much less prolific in the higher HP classes. I suggest it's because the compensation for their driveline layout is not enough'. OK, interesting. Let's prove it. Especially when what we HAVE been using is effectively a SWAG of 50-50-50-100-100. Simple yes, correct? Who knows.
So then someone introduces some actual simulation data. We look at it, we hash it out and we theorize that 175-150-50-50-0 are much better numbers than what we have been using.
Then we think to ourselves, -175 on a 3000+lb Legend and -175 on a 2500lb Celica doesn't seem equal - or 'right'. So we take those number, convert them to percentages for each class and figure we have something even 'better than our better than before'. Perfect - nope, but something we believe is as good as we can get given the granularity of our process and teh amount that our members want us to actually dork-up the system.
So in the end, it works how I think it should work. Idea, research, vote, reject/accept. EVERY request has some sort of selfish reasoning - but that doesn't discount the potential merits.
Sorry Andy, that was meant to be a joke. While I do very much appreciate what the ITAC has done over the last few years, and I believe they are doing the right things, I FIRMLY believe the 1.8 ITA Miatas are under weight.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
The black helicopter is always hovering, isn't it?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Actually, RWD cars have gotten attention. Live axles have been ID'ed as an item that gets an adder.
this is the part i don't like. to me this really feels like we're going to just keep taking weight off of certain cars until they start winning, and i think that stinks. there's nothing out there to PROVE that 175 is a better number than 100. the category is stronger than ever, the current?/old? process may miss the target on a couple cars but overall works very well and changing it in this way creates risk. Which i guess basically comes down to how much merit i put in LapSim vs how accurate you guys think it is.
Ron Earp
Administrator
Sorry to get you riled up, Trav. I agree about the level of prep of some of the Midiv cars, but I really believe the fully prepped 1.8 Miatas are making more power than the multiplier used in "The Process". I don't have any dyno numbers and haven't seen any, but has the ITAC?
BTW, the Integra you spoke of, I haven't seen one in the Midiv?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
ADDER? WTF?
What are we out to do, force everyone to drive FWD boxes or Miatas?
Ron - geesh. "Adder" is a generic term used for a post-base weight addition or reduction. FWD adder, torque adder, etc. SOme can - and do go either way.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I disagree. I can't explain it any better than I did above. *I* feel there WAS enough information to prove that 175 was better than 100. Seeing as how 100 was a SWAG back in the day doesn't discount it's initial effectiveness but it doesn't mean we can't do better - and we think we have.
One important thing to note on the ebb and flow of the rules process in IT...it may seem unstable to some but because the changes are CATEGORICAL and not individual, there should be some solice in that. Things are looked at on a grand scale, not under a microscope.
In the end, I know that people will be resistant to anything that seemingly takes away a perceived advantage their car, engine, chassis (insert the reason you chose your car here) as it is human nature....but we ARE trying to make things equal. Just not trying so hard that we look at on-track performance and make individual adjustments.
Ron Earp
Administrator
I think the term modifier is more appropriate and scalar is more accurate in some circumstances.
I understand, and I don't question the motives or goals of the ITAC in this change.
i agree that it is very important that the changes made are categorical and not individual, and it is a form of "checks and balances" that limits the potential for a class overdog. however, there is still the potential for an entire "group" of cars to gain an advantage over the field (FWD cars aren't light enough until a bunch of them start showing up and winning!).
it's a fine line between on-track performance and in-computer performance. one has the human error of the driver, and the other has the human error of the software engineer.
Last edited:
P Sherm,
I will try to put this in more diplomatic prose than my friend Travis.
For the past two years I would guess that my 1.8 miata was the most developed ITA car in the MidDiv. Not bragging at all, but from all the races I attended it seemed to be the most fully developed. I went from being upper (being nice here) midpack in SM, to winning most of my MidDiv IT races. The biggest part of that improvement was having a car that was much easier to drive fast than before. (Andy had told me it would be a lot better when I followed his development ideas.) I also raced more and got better with seat time. Now here is the kicker. I travel out of area more than most and go to RAtlanta, Barber, and the Texas tracks. Out of MidDiv with my highly developed miata I fight and scrap to be top ten. When you run against top Acuras, Hondas, and Dodges, the miata is right about where it should be. At RAtlanta someone like Bowie or Stretch can compete, but probably not get all the way to the top. At the shorter tracks a driver such as those two or say Andy can win against top competition. Saying the 1.8 is not right is a suspect call if you haven't seen / raced against the NE / SE fully prepped Acuras, Hondas & Neons. Oh and those guys are fast. You put some of those cars & drivers at our MidDiv tracks and the ol 1.8 will seem pretty tame.
Don't take this as a knock on MiDiv, as I love racing there with my buddies and any knock includes me. We just don't have the type IT program that is in some other parts of the country. (I hope this came across a little less harsh than Travis' approach.)
BTW, Racing Nationals is not near the fun of racing IT in MidDiv.
I will try to put this in more diplomatic prose than my friend Travis.
For the past two years I would guess that my 1.8 miata was the most developed ITA car in the MidDiv. Not bragging at all, but from all the races I attended it seemed to be the most fully developed. I went from being upper (being nice here) midpack in SM, to winning most of my MidDiv IT races. The biggest part of that improvement was having a car that was much easier to drive fast than before. (Andy had told me it would be a lot better when I followed his development ideas.) I also raced more and got better with seat time. Now here is the kicker. I travel out of area more than most and go to RAtlanta, Barber, and the Texas tracks. Out of MidDiv with my highly developed miata I fight and scrap to be top ten. When you run against top Acuras, Hondas, and Dodges, the miata is right about where it should be. At RAtlanta someone like Bowie or Stretch can compete, but probably not get all the way to the top. At the shorter tracks a driver such as those two or say Andy can win against top competition. Saying the 1.8 is not right is a suspect call if you haven't seen / raced against the NE / SE fully prepped Acuras, Hondas & Neons. Oh and those guys are fast. You put some of those cars & drivers at our MidDiv tracks and the ol 1.8 will seem pretty tame.
Don't take this as a knock on MiDiv, as I love racing there with my buddies and any knock includes me. We just don't have the type IT program that is in some other parts of the country. (I hope this came across a little less harsh than Travis' approach.)
BTW, Racing Nationals is not near the fun of racing IT in MidDiv.
>> ...one has the human error of the driver, and the other has the human error of the software engineer.
And the software engineer has (a) every reason to try to get it right, and (b) exactly no reason to skew - consciously or not - those assumptions. That's why we trusted her. ANY time we get in the business of making judgments on our own experiences (put differently, qualitative observations of what we see on the track), we're one tiny step closer to competition adjustments (bleah!).
You've told us that you don't want that. Neither do we, so we're doing what we can to NOT go there.
K
And the software engineer has (a) every reason to try to get it right, and (b) exactly no reason to skew - consciously or not - those assumptions. That's why we trusted her. ANY time we get in the business of making judgments on our own experiences (put differently, qualitative observations of what we see on the track), we're one tiny step closer to competition adjustments (bleah!).
You've told us that you don't want that. Neither do we, so we're doing what we can to NOT go there.
K
P Sherm,
I will try to put this in more diplomatic prose than my friend Travis.
For the past two years I would guess that my 1.8 miata was the most developed ITA car in the MidDiv. Not bragging at all, but from all the races I attended it seemed to be the most fully developed. I went from being upper (being nice here) midpack in SM, to winning most of my MidDiv IT races. The biggest part of that improvement was having a car that was much easier to drive fast than before. (Andy had told me it would be a lot better when I followed his development ideas.) I also raced more and got better with seat time. Now here is the kicker. I travel out of area more than most and go to RAtlanta, Barber, and the Texas tracks. Out of MidDiv with my highly developed miata I fight and scrap to be top ten. When you run against top Acuras, Hondas, and Dodges, the miata is right about where it should be. At RAtlanta someone like Bowie or Stretch can compete, but probably not get all the way to the top. At the shorter tracks a driver such as those two or say Andy can win against top competition. Saying the 1.8 is not right is a suspect call if you haven't seen / raced against the NE / SE fully prepped Acuras, Hondas & Neons. Oh and those guys are fast. You put some of those cars & drivers at our MidDiv tracks and the ol 1.8 will seem pretty tame.
Don't take this as a knock on MiDiv, as I love racing there with my buddies and any knock includes me. We just don't have the type IT program that is in some other parts of the country. (I hope this came across a little less harsh than Travis' approach.)
BTW, Racing Nationals is not near the fun of racing IT in MidDiv.
Mac, I suppose some of that is a "blinders on" outlook for me. I guess I don't pay enough attention outside of the Midiv. We (the racers) put an awful lot of faith and trust in the ITAC to ensure we are on as level a playing field as possible. They have a different vantage point than I do, I just want to make sure theirs is the correct one.
And I have done my share of chasing John around the track in SSC, IT is MUCH more fun!
