A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[jjjanos]

You said you "know this" but how? Lets assume this car is legal. The driver is the next Mario Andretti, and has skill sets beyond the average or even very good club racer. He's able to extract 100% of the cars abilities. Other drivers attending the event are quite good, but the reality is they're not at the same level. The you look at Mario to be's car and the prep level is just amazing. It's legal, but every little allowance is taken advantage of. He's got deep pockets and can use the absolute best tires in the best condition possible (maybe stickers for qual, scrubs for race). The downside is the process says it's 150 lbs heavy. Not unexpected, he goes out and wins each of these series. Now several other drivers are racing the same make and model car, and have it prepped pretty darn well. They manage to stay in the top 1/3 of cars, but can't overcome the disadvantage they start out with - being 150 lbs over weight. But since this other driver was on a different level than all of his competitors, we say the car is classed just fine. It's not fair to all of the other people who drive the same make/model, but tough.

Excuse me, but the above is the level of prep and ability to which the MR-2 and the other cars that were dropped from ITA to ITB were held when people said the process weight was too heavy - i.e. 10/10ths build and Fangio-like ability. The fast car has demonstrated what a 10/10ths prep/build can do. The other drivers are capable of building a similar car.

All you've done is re-enforce that the classification of this particular car has either 1. relied on inappropriate assumptions (25% HP gain) or 2. demonstrated a model failure.

I'd love to not have to build my car to 10/10ths. How about taking 200lbs out of my car too to compensate for my lack of mechanical ability, dedication and finances?

And I'd like to retire from the field of battle.

I know your position on the most important question, I can't change your - or anyone else's - mind because its rooted in a basic difference in first assumptions, so you win.

K

Kirk,

I'm somewhat disappointed with you. Not because you won't engage, but from a model-builder and data analysis standpoint.

You know that your model is an approximation of what occurs and are entirely dependent on the assumptions used and yet, when given real world data that the model has erred, you would stand by the prediction.

This is akin to the Chairman of the Fed saying - I don't care that the measured unemployment rate is 12%, the model says it should be 5%. We're not lowering interest rates.

I've been building economic models for 24 years and I'd never produce a forecast that flies in the face of reason. A prediction saying that one should take 200lbs out of a car where you have observable data that, at its current weight, the car is a front-runner screams model error and/or assumption error.

In short, if the model is to be the be-all/end-all of classification, then one needs to use the most optimistic HP gain modifier until a 10/10ths build is presented for independent/trustworthy dyno analysis. I.e. EVERY car, until demonstrated otherwise, uses the max.

[frnkhous]

Ok, since so many wanna allow these things to be removed how do you suggest doing it? One item at a time with people constantly asking for new allowances, or open the flood gates by writing some vague rule that allows "street" items be removed? This is only the second time I've asked this. If nobody has a suggestion about how you'd actually allow this, then I gotta think that while you may think the items are silly, or wanna bitch if you gotta replace them, that the rules don't need rewritten if those that want the allowances, but haven't even thought out how it should be done. You will make the class less stable by doing this, look at the last few posts before mine, you guys are concerning people.

[erlrich]

Ok, since so many wanna allow these things to be removed how do you suggest doing it? One item at a time with people constantly asking for new allowances, or open the flood gates by writing some vague rule that allows "street" items be removed? This is only the second time I've asked this. If nobody has a suggestion about how you'd actually allow this, then I gotta think that while you may think the items are silly, or wanna bitch if you gotta replace them, that the rules don't need rewritten if those that want the allowances, but haven't even thought out how it should be done. You will make the class less stable by doing this, look at the last few posts before mine, you guys are concerning people.

Seems to me this would be an easy one to write, but then I'm not devious (experienced) enough to think of ways to twist the rules to get an unintended advantage. How about something like:

"The following items may be removed:
- Windshield washer bottle and attached hoses
- Windshield wiper motor, wiper actuating arms, wiper arm and blade
- Horn
- Heater core, its housing, and heating & a/c controls & their operating mechanisms
- Headlights may be removed; any opening in the body created by the removal of the headlights must be completely covered by a permanently attached metal or plastic cover
No wiring, bracketry, or body work may be removed or modified to facilitate removal of allowed items."

This could all be dealt with in a single, one-time only allowance. I think with the talent we currently have on the ITAC writing the rule would be the easy part; agreeing on what to allow would seem to me to be the tough part.

For the record, I did vote yes on this one - the items in question seem to me to be much less prod-like than the allowances for interior/door gutting, open ECUs, adjustable coil-overs, or about a dozen other things we're already allowed to do. I do also understand the resistance to these changes, the whole slippery slope argument, unintended consequences, etc. I also understand the "leave it alone" attitude, I just am one of those who tends to think there's almost always room for improvement. What I think a lot of you, including a few ITAC members, are failing to take into account though, are the changes that have occurred over the past few years w/r/t attitudes about the class and the rules making process. Knowing what I do about who makes up the ITAC, their attitudes, experience, and dedication gives me pretty high confidence that they aren't going to let things get out of hand.

This isn't a really big deal; I doubt very seriously anyone will not build or race an IT car because these things are required. At the same time I don't see how these items could be the beginning of the end for IT. It seems to me we've already passed these things on the way down the slope...

[RacerBill]

Seems to me this would be an easy one to write, but then I'm not devious (experienced) enough to think of ways to twist the rules to get an unintended advantage. How about something like:

"The following items may be removed:
- Windshield washer bottle and attached hoses
- Windshield wiper motor, wiper actuating arms, wiper arm and blade
- Horn
- Heater core, its housing, and heating & a/c controls & their operating mechanisms
- Headlights may be removed; any opening in the body created by the removal of the headlights must be completely covered by a permanently attached metal or plastic cover
No wiring, bracketry, or body work may be removed or modified to facilitate removal of allowed items."

This could all be dealt with in a single, one-time only allowance. I think with the talent we currently have on the ITAC writing the rule would be the easy part; agreeing on what to allow would seem to me to be the tough part.

For the record, I did vote yes on this one - the items in question seem to me to be much less prod-like than the allowances for interior/door gutting, open ECUs, adjustable coil-overs, or about a dozen other things we're already allowed to do. I do also understand the resistance to these changes, the whole slippery slope argument, unintended consequences, etc. I also understand the "leave it alone" attitude, I just am one of those who tends to think there's almost always room for improvement. What I think a lot of you, including a few ITAC members, are failing to take into account though, are the changes that have occurred over the past few years w/r/t attitudes about the class and the rules making process. Knowing what I do about who makes up the ITAC, their attitudes, experience, and dedication gives me pretty high confidence that they aren't going to let things get out of hand.

This isn't a really big deal; I doubt very seriously anyone will not build or race an IT car because these things are required. At the same time I don't see how these items could be the beginning of the end for IT. It seems to me we've already passed these things on the way down the slope...

I second Earl's post. I am for these allowances, not for the purpose of being able to remove the items, but for the purpose of not having to replace them, if they become unavailable.

[IPRESS]

Good one Bill, I agree.
And thanks for helping out at NL.

[RacerBill]

No, thank you Mac. PM me your address and I'll send you a dvd with incar video from the night time session. Send me Ren's and Myron's addresses, and I'll send them dvd's too.

[Conover]

Come on guys, let them take off their wipers, their heater cores and their washer bottles, it'll be fun to watch them trying to figure out how to see when it rains. Let there be rain, rain, rain, rain!

The reason that the ECU rule keeps getting "trotted up". Is that it's still screwed up, it's an incomplete solution that needs to be reconsidered. Just like my letter said two years ago, if your gonna open it up open it up. In my view that should be numero uno, top priority for the ITAC/BOD.

This balogna about washer bottles and wiper blades is just a bunch of hoowey, let's keep the debates targeted on things that actually matter.

I vote no, you gotta keep that stuff, you don't like it, you go prod. You wanted to be in a national class anyway, just go prod already. It's freakin IT, understand? It's IT, you have washer bottles, you have wipers, you have haeter cores, get the hell over it! Your gonna need that shit one day, and your gonna be pissed when an itb golf walks your its junk in a rainy ecr one day.

[matt batson]

I second Earl's post. I am for these allowances, not for the purpose of being able to remove the items, but for the purpose of not having to replace them, if they become unavailable.

I thirdly that...