A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

tnord said:

there was a repeatable process in play long ago.

Click to expand...

Talk about a guy that has absolutely no clue what he's talking about! You say you've been around IT ~ 5 years now. Kirk, do you recall when you first dubbed it the 'Miller ratio'?

tnord said:

PS - the internet is a terrible place; specifically forums. nothing good has ever come from them.

Click to expand...

More evidence that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. I guess you don't consider ITR a 'good' thing. I can tell you for a fact that what ended up being the proposal and initial classifications for ITR was developed right here on this very board.

Go buy your damned clubs already.

Bill Miller said:

Talk about a guy that has absolutely no clue what he's talking about! You say you've been around IT ~ 5 years now. Kirk, do you recall when you first dubbed it the 'Miller ratio'?

Click to expand...

November of 2001 was the first use of the term in this forum. In that same thread I wrote, "...my sense is that there is a lot of frustration (in all of the make-specific forums) with the lack of 'transparency,' where the IT classification and specification setting process is concerned. If we were able to see into the process, then there would be no room for even the suggestion that something hinky is going on."

We've come a long way in 8 freakin' years, eh...? Gawd. How depressing.

K

Wow Kirk, what a walk down memory lane! And you're right, look where things are now!

Have all this pent up energy? Enjoy arguing about race car rules? Come out to the VSCDA event at Road America this weekend! Volunteer workers are needed in every specialty! If you want to argue rules, go help in Tech or work a corner and try to find every rules violation on Vintage cars as they go by! (BTW, I'm serious. We do need the help this weekend.)

For those of you that are all for the washer bottle and other crap, I have a question. Why not just take it all out and run Production at the regional level? Our (CENDIV) prod groups at the regional races are typically poorly subscribed, so you won't be running against the National drivers and then you can "build real racecars." IT can be left the way it is and everyone can be "happy."

Bill, I know you're mental capacity only allows for the processing of a single line of information at a time, but if you go back and read (slowly) I clarified my comment re: forums to be mostly sarcastic in nature. so you can just calm yourself down.

it must be hard for you to have proper perspective on time when your laps are only marginally quicker than the 5 or so years since "the great realignment" using process v1. or has it been 6? or 4? whatever. the bottom line is that the process has been in place, and the class growing stronger for multiple years (and yes, i consider the aspect of ignoring cars that were within 100lbs to be part of that process). i support continual efforts for transparancy, and documentation of methods and thought processes to ensure future repeatabilty, but not continual efforts to try and make it "perfect." not at this time anyway.

BTW - regarding that cat and bag thing. I did some digging around and hear maybe it was a 250# reduction that was requested, not 200#. Truth?

edit - 2290 for the Audi, vs 2280 for the Golf. That would be the equivalent of asking me to drop my compression 1.5, and add a whole nother cylinder. If the motor would fit sideways I would do that in a heartbeat.

At a 1mm overbore that's a 2281cc motor that is in the same family/design vs. 1825cc motor.

This is why I make my prediction. Just be ready to use your mechanism. Hard to beleive that this passes the 'smell' test of the ITAC as a whole.

shwah said:

BTW - regarding that cat and bag thing. I did some digging around and hear maybe it was a 250# reduction that was requested, not 200#. Truth?

Click to expand...

Again, I am not sure anyone at this moment has a problem with the CRB pushing anything back to us. What is happening now is that we may be being asked to find 'evidence' that doesn't exist currently. Absent of that, what does the IT community expect us/the CRB to do?

Huh? Did you guys request a 250# reduction or a 200# reduction?

I am not sure the actual number but it was run at 25%. See my previous post.

tnord said:

Bill, I know you're mental capacity only allows for the processing of a single line of information at a time, but if you go back and read (slowly) I clarified my comment re: forums to be mostly sarcastic in nature. so you can just calm yourself down.

it must be hard for you to have proper perspective on time when your laps are only marginally quicker than the 5 or so years since "the great realignment" using process v1. or has it been 6? or 4? whatever. the bottom line is that the process has been in place, and the class growing stronger for multiple years (and yes, i consider the aspect of ignoring cars that were within 100lbs to be part of that process). i support continual efforts for transparancy, and documentation of methods and thought processes to ensure future repeatabilty, but not continual efforts to try and make it "perfect." not at this time anyway.

Click to expand...

Travis,

Exactly WTF are you talking about? Your weak attempts at personal insults are quite amusing, but you still don't have a damned clue as to what you're talking about. You continue to shoot your mouth off, and when you get called on it, you claim you were being 'sarcastic'. You're rapidly becoming the poster boy for the 'me' generation. Isn't today the day you go get your new clubs?

Andy Bettencourt said:

Again, I am not sure anyone at this moment has a problem with the CRB pushing anything back to us. What is happening now is that we may be being asked to find 'evidence' that doesn't exist currently. Absent of that, what does the IT community expect us/the CRB to do?

Click to expand...

Andy, As you well know by now the process seems to be a great tool. It should be very useful, but it is far from foolproof. As good as it is said to be, there are holes and exceptions in it. (In any process there are almost always things that don't exactly fit.) I would think that using the process plus other info to get things close makes sense.
But I could be wrong.

Andy Bettencourt said:

What does the IT community feel about THIS concept:

Run car A through the process. No 'additional' information is known about power output so 25% is used. A process number is spit out and recommended. It is 200lbs lower than it is now.

The CRB rejects the recommendation based on 'historical on-track perfromance'. Meaning the car is competitive now, lowering its weight would result in a problem given what we have seen so far on track.

To what level is the IT comminuty acceptant of on-track performance being used in the process. I won't comment. If you feel stringly either way - WRITE THE CRB NOW.

Click to expand...

Red Herring.

Are the currently raced cars legal? Has this been confirmed? If so, then I would say the process itself should be rejected. Failing to hit real world data by that far would indicate either specification or calibration error.

IPRESS said:

Andy, As you well know by now the process seems to be a great tool. It should be very useful, but it is far from foolproof. As good as it is said to be, there are holes and exceptions in it. (In any process there are almost always things that don't exactly fit.) I would think that using the process plus other info to get things close makes sense.
But I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

You are not wrong at all! I am not sure it has 'holes' (we spent about 9 months closing them) but the methodology we use is certainly far from perfect. We know this. We know it can never be exact. We just want to make sure we are 'wrong' the same way for every car in every class. I think that because IT is made up of so many cars with so many technologies and so many platforms we can agree that throwing a dart and hitting the board is a good goal. I think that is all IT guys want - is to be on the same dartboard...because we know we can't hit bullseyes. We will leave that to Prod. And how do they do it? They throw the dart and then move the board.

Using other info does make sense for sure. The issue for us is WHEN we use it, how much is enough, who wants to lock their name in next to it, when it isn't readily available, where do you get it and how hard do you dig? Janos's red herring post is congruent with common thought on IT - level on-track data.

jjjanos said:

Red Herring.

Are the currently raced cars legal? HOW Has this been confirmed? HOW do we Know what we know? If so, then I would say the process itself should be rejected. Failing to hit real world data by that far would indicate either specification or calibration error.

Click to expand...

Added some ...

IPRESS said:

Andy, As you well know by now the process seems to be a great tool. It should be very useful, but it is far from foolproof. As good as it is said to be, there are holes and exceptions in it. (In any process there are almost always things that don't exactly fit.) I would think that using the process plus other info to get things close makes sense.
But I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

OK, let's run with that.

What other info?
How do we scrub that info down. Remember, we need to judge on track performance with the same stick across the board, and we've got 350 cars to keep aligned.
How do we apply "other info" repeatably?
The membership has been pretty darn clear they don't like smoke filled back room dealings - they aren't happy unless we can show them the math. (we're working on that, but it's counter to the decades old ingrained club philosophy) Do we add weight to a car and label it "Fluff"? or "on track performance adder", or "Just because we are worried about it". or "It's gotta make more power"?

That's a serious question. I know I posed some ludicrous answers, but really, how would you insert such a chunk into the result, and answer members questions?

I'm all for using on track performance as a trigger...to use to go sniffing for more info. ANd that info comes out, it's actually rather numerous sometimes how it happens, but, in time, it comes out. But to just add chunks based on hunches is tough to defend.

So, Mac, help me understand "more info". Where, what, and how is it scrubbed down, and how is it used, and defended, and documented?

jjjanos said:

Red Herring.

Are the currently raced cars legal? Has this been confirmed? If so, then I would say the process itself should be rejected. Failing to hit real world data by that far would indicate either specification or calibration error.

Click to expand...

So the only factors that contribute to on-track performance - by the above logic - are...

** Legality

** Weight

Really?

K

EDIT - On reflection, this REALLY pisses me off. Even if they'd been torn down to the bare tubs and declared squeaky clean (which they were not), a couple of examples of a car demonstrate speed in qualifying at one event, and it's "proof" that the process doesn't work...? Then quit dinking about and commit to rewards weight. Fold up the ITAC's tent and call it a day.

Yep, it is a very inexact science. As much as we hate to even think of adjustments based on "track performance", that is really the thing that matters the most. The reason I came back to IT was the different cars and their abilities to out perform at different places on the track. Makes for a fun contest and also one that has less damage than some other classes. (Well accept for T1 or T5 at ARRC )
In my estimation, the PTB will be supportive of what you guys suggest if it is pushed as a tool but not the only thing considered. Sometimes the perception is that the process and it's adoption is more important than getting things right. Not saying that is a reality, just that it has come across that way. I think the one thing everybody can agree on is stability. But not stability that allows a gross overdog. You always need a safety valve to take care of the unforseen class killer. Other things that the PTB has to keep in mind are actions that help or hurt participation. We are a cash builder for the club. Like it or not if numbers drop (and I am not saying they will no matter what) the club will suffer. The PTB has to keep this in mind. Things are just never cut and dry.

Marc, how about this. I fully support and agree with Kirk's fear of setting weights by on track performance.

On the other end of the spectrum, I also agree we can't completely ignore it, nor would it be possible to (we are human, and what we see and observe matters to us).

I think Jake put it this way, and this I agree with: observed on track performance should be a trigger for us to take a harder look at a car, or what the process "spits out" for that car.

I see that as a fair balance between the two extremes. Your thoughts?

Jake,
I understand the "here it is in black and white" good side of the process idea. It is nice to be able to just point at the rule book and say "There it is your car is classed in ITZ @ 4,000 lbs. after it was run through the process. See ya go have fun."
Very clean system. The problem is (and this is gathered from very second hand info, so feel free to dispute) the process is starting with some educated guesses. As long as you guys have worked on this I am sure that they are good ones. But there are times these guesses will not be right and will impact the results. Why I don't know. So in my opinion "track performance" has to be a part of the equation even if it is a distasteful part. How do you figure out how to use it? When do you know it is accurate? Those are tough questions to deal with. Maybe when you find out either way (most of brand X cars are dogs in a class or most of brand X cars are front runners) you apply an adjustment during rules season. IT is not so big that information on a "hot" or "dog" car can't be found.
I know that this view is not what you guys think is good, but adding the process to a "track performance" review is about as good as we can do. IMHO.