May 2011 Fastrack

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like I said, I understand your frustration.

Let me ask you this though.

Accord aside (which is an issue for me -- a big one), what about the 30% default in ITB has caused any competition issues?

Smells like brain-wasking to me...

No NEGATIVE issues to the CLASS, just CARS. It's a classing them uncompetitively - and that is NOT the way the Process was conceived to work. It's a 'best-guess-power-to-weight-with-some-adjustments-for-physical-charateristics" classing system.

Not a "class-them-high-and-adjust-down-when-we-see-they-can't-compete" system.

[gran racing]

what about the 30% default in ITB has caused any competition issues?

Ah, so we're looking at on track performance again. Wasn't that same general question asked prior to moving forward with the process and evaluating already classed cars? Hell, I personally was told that "IT is great, why should we mess with it?" when talks of the process being implimented were going on. We really don't know what issues this multivalve adder has caused. Guess we should just hope that we were lucky instead of right or more importantly, fair. Give cars and competitors a fair shake. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask for, and am certain you don't either.

Fine, all multivalve cars now and going forward just coincidently achive this magic number just cause and not because the ITAC reviewed information that actually supports it. Either way is a big ole ugly wart on the process for ITB & ITC. It's a shame to go this far with the process and have that.

The Accord should be looked at fairly just like any other multivalve car. If evidence says that particular engine gains 30% from a build, adjust accordingly. If it says 20%, then fine. To me, it's all about what Chip said:

some cars classed with it have been denied the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.

[lateapex911]

Like I said, I understand your frustration.

Let me ask you this though.

Accord aside (which is an issue for me -- a big one), what about the 30% default in ITB has caused any competition issues?

jeff, I love ya man, but really? You KNOW that misses the point ...by a mile.

1- Can you really tell if there have or have not been issues based on the number of cars classed thusly /the prep level of that small number of examples/the driver level of those cars, the track conditions, the weather, the tires, the track itself, the competitive level of the OTHER cars, and on and on and on....

No, you can draw NO reasonable conclusions....

But again, that's NOT the point.
Look at my example...that's how it works now? Two equal cars, equal weighted in one class, but a hundred pounds different in ITB because the sticker on the door has one letter different.

Going forward...the BIG picture..is the issue.
Please, edit your post before Kirk sees it, or he'll burst a blood vessel LOL.

[JeffYoung]

No, I believe what I wrote. It's the very same argument we use to justify the process. Our system of power/weight classification has not produced overdogs, etc.

Same is true of the 1.3 in ITB. I don't like it, but I have to balance the hurt of trying to change it v. the hurt of not. I could conceivably spend a lot of political capital trying to get it changed, at the expense of a whole host of much bigger issues we are facing in IT land.

Look, I don't like and don't agree with the 1.3 default. But I don't see it as some sort of offense to humanity that you guys do. Part of that is, I admit, because I don't run in B or C.

Personally, I think some of the deducts and adders are far more problematic from a repeatability/fairness standpoint.

And I think there are ways to work around it to make sure it doesn't gum up the works.

I get -- trust me, I think Travis and I are two of the only guys left who have fully bought into this -- repeatability, objectivity, and transparency.

But you guys have to remember -- and I love all three of you -- that this a committee with folks with different viewpoints on things. We can't always get what we want all the time.

Here, to me, it's just not worth the fight it would take to fix this if it is as entrenched as I personally believe it is. If the issue comes up, I will explain why I think the 1.3 default is wrong, and I would vote against continuing to use it. But I'm not going to say the whole system is junk because of this one issue I disagree with.

jeff, I love ya man, but really? You KNOW that misses the point ...by a mile.

1- Can you really tell if there have or have not been issues based on the number of cars classed thusly /the prep level of that small number of examples/the driver level of those cars, the track conditions, the weather, the tires, the track itself, the competitive level of the OTHER cars, and on and on and on....

No, you can draw NO reasonable conclusions....

But again, that's NOT the point.
Look at my example...that's how it works now? Two equal cars, equal weighted in one class, but a hundred pounds different in ITB because the sticker on the door has one letter different.

Going forward...the BIG picture..is the issue.
Please, edit your post before Kirk sees it, or he'll burst a blood vessel LOL.

[JoshS]

No, I believe what I wrote. It's the very same argument we use to justify the process. Our system of power/weight classification has not produced overdogs, etc.

Same is true of the 1.3 in ITB. I don't like it, but I have to balance the hurt of trying to change it v. the hurt of not. I could conceivably spend a lot of political capital trying to get it changed, at the expense of a whole host of much bigger issues we are facing in IT land.

Look, I don't like and don't agree with the 1.3 default. But I don't see it as some sort of offense to humanity that you guys do. Part of that is, I admit, because I don't run in B or C.

Personally, I think some of the deducts and adders are far more problematic from a repeatability/fairness standpoint.

And I think there are ways to work around it to make sure it doesn't gum up the works.

I get -- trust me, I think Travis and I are two of the only guys left who have fully bought into this -- repeatability, objectivity, and transparency.

But you guys have to remember -- and I love all three of you -- that this a committee with folks with different viewpoints on things. We can't always get what we want all the time.

Here, to me, it's just not worth the fight it would take to fix this if it is as entrenched as I personally believe it is. If the issue comes up, I will explain why I think the 1.3 default is wrong, and I would vote against continuing to use it. But I'm not going to say the whole system is junk because of this one issue I disagree with.

I agree.

[Knestis]

... I could conceivably spend a lot of political capital trying to get it changed, at the expense of a whole host of much bigger issues we are facing in IT land. ...

The ITAC looks at the question, checks consensus on what THEY THINK is best for the class, then makes a formal recommendation to the CRB. When the CRB does its job and makes a decision, the membership knows who to lobby for what they believe is right.

It's not hard guys but you have to help the membership hold the CRB - or the member or two who actually make the decisions about IT - accountable for their actions. NOBODY HERE thinks that this thing is good for the category. Nobody.

Why is it STILL so hard to envision, that decision-makers in the Club will act openly...? The fact that we think it takes any "political capital" is evidence that we're still screwed up.

K

[JoshS]

The fact that we think it takes any "political capital" is evidence that we're still screwed up.

Ever the idealist.

The idea that the ITAC will just make their best recommendations and then have the CRB take it or leave it is how the country gets left without the ability to pay its bills, or how the state of California ends up without a budget for months.

It's all about working together and compromising, not just blindly sticking to ideals. That's becomes "political," I'm sorry to say, but there'd be zero forward progress without it. I think you know that.

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, you are an extremely smart, 50 year old guy. You have a lot of life experience and a lot of experience working in groups.

You have to know and understand this. You just have to. I know you do.

When groups of people get together, they make decisions basically via what is "politicking." Working together. Compromising. Give and take.

That's the way the world works.

Here, what you guys can't get your minds around is that some folks actually reasonably believe the 1.3 default makes sense. It's not some secret plan to screw others. It's not some fiendish attempt to hide from membership how decisions are made. They truly believe that it makes the most sense to have a 1.3 default for multi-valve engines in ITB.

THe question is do we potentially cause a huge blow up and do damage to how the committee is operating, and the relationship with the CRB, over THIS (in my view not massively important) point.

For me, the answer is no. I'll vote against it (the 1.3 default) if asked. But I am not personally going to war over this.

I will say it again. I think the process by which the FWD deduct was adopted was far more flawed, far more secretive and far less scientific and rational than the 1.3 issue, and has far more implications for the rest of the class. But I accept that this was the decision of the committee, and apply the FWD deduct when asked.

The Process is a great tool. Huge step forward. But it's not a religion and we don't burn the heretics, much less not accept the fact that it may not be perfect in all cases and may always have a wart or two.

The ITAC looks at the question, checks consensus on what THEY THINK is best for the class, then makes a formal recommendation to the CRB. When the CRB does its job and makes a decision, the membership knows who to lobby for what they believe is right.

It's not hard guys but you have to help the membership hold the CRB - or the member or two who actually make the decisions about IT - accountable for their actions. NOBODY HERE thinks that this thing is good for the category. Nobody.

Why is it STILL so hard to envision, that decision-makers in the Club will act openly...? The fact that we think it takes any "political capital" is evidence that we're still screwed up.

K

[gran racing]

some folks actually reasonably believe the 1.3 default makes sense.

Fine then. Have these individuals back it up with proof and solid reasoning. I really don't that's too much to ask.

I think the process by which the FWD deduct was adopted was far more flawed, far more secretive and far less scientific and rational than the 1.3 issue, and has far more implications for the rest of the class.

Oh well that makes me feel better. LOL!!!

I'll vote against it (the 1.3 default) if asked.

You've been asked via letter # 4429. I know now it's pointless, but since the decision has been made I see no reason to not put the generic "no, thank you for your input" answer in Fastrack.

[JeffYoung]

Do you feel that your car is unfairly classified?

Do you feel that any of your competitors (other than the Accord or the MR2) are unfairly classified?

Meaning, has the 1.3 default created any real problems or are we only speaking theoretically at this point?

Fine then. Have these individuals back it up with proof and solid reasoning. I really don't that's too much to ask.



Oh well that makes me feel better. LOL!!!



You've been asked via letter # 4429. I know now it's pointless, but since the decision has been made I see no reason to not put the generic "no, thank you for your input" answer in Fastrack.

[Knestis]

...and Josh has retired from the ITAC, and eventually Jeff will, too, and we'll be left with the same system we've struggled with for decades - one wherein something like this 1.3x requirement can literally be the decision of one or two particular people in the right place in the system. I'm pretty confident that this is the case in this instance but the membership doesn't know who he is or his motivation.

I have exactly ZERO problem if someone "reasonably believes the 1.3 default makes sense." If it's not a "secret plan" or "fiendish attempt." then they should have ZERO problem having their position in the record, being able to explain it, and NOT "hiding from membership how decisions are made."

It's a fundamental problem if ITAC members know the source of the decision and won't say because "it's a secret," and that you feel that making an ad hoc committee recommendation to the CRB would result in a "huge blow up and do damage to how the committee is operating." I suggest, "run it up the chain of command for a transparent decision," and you hear "go to war."

I don't think one needs to be a Pollyanna to think there's a problem with that.

K

[JeffYoung]

I can't convey to you the nuances of everything that happens in committee, nor is it my place (nor should I) specifically state what other individual members on the committee think about the 1.3 default.

I can speak generally about it, and I would like to think you know me, and Josh, well enough to believe us when we say that the folks who supported it did so for apparently rational reasons and even though I disagree with them, there is nothing untoward going on here.

The folks who do believe that aren't hiding from membership. I believe they would be more than happy to discuss any of this with you face to face. FOr a variety of reasons, some of which I understand and some of which I don't, they choose not to post on internet boards.

...and Josh has retired from the ITAC, and eventually Jeff will, too, and we'll be left with the same system we've struggled with for decades - one wherein something like this 1.3x requirement can literally be the decision of one or two particular people in the right place in the system. I'm pretty confident that this is the case in this instance but the membership doesn't know who he is or his motivation.

I have exactly ZERO problem if someone "reasonably believes the 1.3 default makes sense." If it's not a "secret plan" or "fiendish attempt." then they should have ZERO problem having their position in the record, being able to explain it, and NOT "hiding from membership how decisions are made."

It's a fundamental problem if ITAC members know the source of the decision and won't say because "it's a secret," and that you feel that making an ad hoc committee recommendation to the CRB would result in a "huge blow up and do damage to how the committee is operating." I suggest, "run it up the chain of command for a transparent decision," and you hear "go to war."

I don't think one needs to be a Pollyanna to think there's a problem with that.

K

[gran racing]

Jeff, I genuinely feel that multivalve cars are not given the same consideration and on a level playing ground when using the process. This has an impact on how existing and future multivalve cars are classed. While you and a couple of others might feel comfortable with a workaround, I am not. I do recognize the politics involved in this but lets at least call it that.

On the flip side now, have the other members who feel otherwise provide proof why this default makes sense, is fair, and we’ll be done this. It shouldn’t be that difficult if it’s valid.

This is where personally my biggest frustration comes from. No one has been able to provide a solid reason for it.

Do you feel that your car is unfairly classified?

My feeling prior to this popping into the newest version of the process was just to trust the outcomes and let the chips fall where they may. After submitting the Golf III for review, I also thought it would only be fair (for better or worse) to submit my car to be run through the same process. It was submitted a long time ago. I’d like cars to be given a fair chance to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly.

Don't worry, I'm done with this.

[JeffYoung]

No one has been able to provide a solid reason that you agree with.

Those guys (collectively) seem to think that in general, the 4 valve motors in ITB will make 30%. That's their belief and while I think a default is the wrong way to go, there is empircal data to back it up (and some that cuts against it).

But it's no more voodoo (to me) than using a computer program that you have no idea how it works, or how it uses variables or what it does when you click a box that says "FWD" to help you formulate a significant weight deduction for FWD cars.

Jeff, I genuinely feel that multivalve cars are not given the same consideration and on a level playing ground when using the process. This has an impact on how existing and future multivalve cars are classed. While you and a couple of others might feel comfortable with a workaround, I am not. I do recognize the politics involved in this but lets at least call it that.

On the flip side now, have the other members who feel otherwise provide proof why this default makes sense, is fair, and we’ll be done this. It shouldn’t be that difficult if it’s valid.

This is where personally my biggest frustration comes from. No one has been able to provide a solid reason for it.



My feeling prior to this popping into the newest version of the process was just to trust the outcomes and let the chips fall where they may. After submitting the Golf III for review, I also thought it would only be fair (for better or worse) to submit my car to be run through the same process. It was submitted a long time ago. I’d like cars to be given a fair chance to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly.

Don't worry, I'm done with this.

[JeffYoung]

That's not entirely true either. The original draft of the process had a variety of default assumed gains, one of which was the multivavle. Others were smogged up POSs, others were inline sixes.

Some cars got gain modifiers in excess of 25% without any real determination as to why before the present Process in the Ops Manual was put in place.

NOT TRUE.

A newly-spec'd BMW - like ay other car - is assumed to make a 25% increase until the ITAC makes a determination otherwise using one of two prescribed methods.

K

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I REALLY want to hear how this 30% crap makes sense, really. And I give you a TON of credit for being the only current guy on the ITAC, essentially, to stand up and actually communicate.

(Travis posted here that it was NOT a 'political' thing, yet when cross examined he's gone away and decided to stop posting before he got further in the hole. I know he's still on the boards and reading, because he's visible. I give him credit for communicating, and I know he doesn't know the whole background, even if he thinks he might. And thats fine.)

So, kudos to you.

I get 'political capital', but THAT is the VERY thing that bugs the hell out of me. You and Josh have insinuated broadly that to push this issue would be to doom a otherwise good working relationship with the CRB. In fact, you know that I was essentially invited to get lost when I began to call out some of the CRB hijinks. So it's obvious that the CRB has factions that are insisting the 30% crap remain.

So, I have no issue with you, or Josh in working to get the big ship moved...at the expense of one of it's four engines.

My HUGE issue is that I can not get over is how ANYone can defend this, with a straight face. MAYbe they can, but we'll never know unless they man up and speak....and sure, you can say "Some people are uncomfortable with posting...and it's not my place to identify them", so, guess what, we'll never even get a defense to consider.

I KNOW you think they are being good honest believe in what they are saying individuals.
But I think they are rationalizing their positions and have gotten to the point they actually believe what they are saying...whoever they are.

But I would LOVE to be proved wrong.

Now, I KNOW what I heard on a con call, and I KNOW that a car can't make 5% more hp because it has a "B" sticker on the door.....so I HAVE to think that logic has flown out the window. I won't go as far to say that the persons who originally did 'the deal' did it for personal gain, but I DO think they can't see the cold reality of the ridiculousness because their vision is obscured by something.

And, the lack of legitimate defense from whoever they are sure doesn't help the appearance.

As a side note, I feel that if you (the general you) are on a committee to serve the clubs members, you owe it to them to be available for communication, and to have your opinions counted and documented publicly. I understand that many disagree, and they prefer to work behind closed doors. But, to me, if i can't explain or reasonably justify my position to a member, then maybe I should rethink that position. I don't expect every member to agree, but that's fine. I've stood in the paddock at Road Atlanta discussing things and I KNOW the person I was talking to disagreed, but, that's ok, they saw my side, and I saw theirs. And they both made sense.

[lateapex911]

That's not entirely true either. The original draft of the process had a variety of default assumed gains, one of which was the multivavle. Others were smogged up POSs, others were inline sixes.

Some cars got gain modifiers in excess of 25% without any real determination as to why before the present Process in the Ops Manual was put in place.

True, but that goes waaaaay back. There is no current "BMW 6s get 25 + X% added" factor.

Oh, and the multivalve thing was, of course, for ALL classes. Because if it was true, then it was true for any class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think I just killed a man with a trident.

[tnord]

Travis posted here that it was NOT a 'political' thing, yet when cross examined he's gone away and decided to stop posting before he got further in the hole.

i've been sworn to secrecy by the CRB, BOD, Dahnert, and even Brownback himself....so i can't answer your questions even if i wanted to.

you guys are so blind with bitterness and boredom that you can't even see that i'm on your side. but please.....carry on.

[JeffYoung]

30% gain on tridents. 3 prongs.

I think I just killed a man with a trident.