ITAC News.

[Chip42]

Someone needs to stand up and fix it.

From what I gather, that may be difficult for some of the responisble members.

complete agreement in kind, though - this mess needs to be cleaned up, somehow. I don't see why a class by class rework simillar to "the great realignment" is so feared. is there honestly fear of mass resentment by the membership for fixing the current state of affairs? I find that difficult (but not impossible) to believe.

[JeffYoung]

Solely my opinion:

1. The higher ups see it (a complete processing of all cars) as a "mass comp adjustment" that is not appropriate for IT. Under our existing rules, there is more merit to that argument than you would think.

2. I have some concern about reprocessing every car, personally. It's easy to do the process math on a mid 90s Honda, or a 12a rotary. But try to find accurate specs on say an early 70s Fiat, or a 1968 Corvair. Lots of errors could be made, and it will be a Herculean task. Josh, however, has come up with a great (partial) solution, which is to simply delete the weights for older, problematic cars that aren't raced and allow the weight to be relisted (via the process, and research) if someone requests it.

When I first joined the ITAC this issue -- whether to process all cars or not -- was the biggest open item. I think we were heading towards a "reprocess" with Josh's mod when we were first tasked with trying it out on ITB.

I remember being initially opposed to the whole "reprocess everything" idea given the amount of work it seemed to be, and the potential for error. But, I think the events of the last six months make it clear (to me) that that is exactly what we should do.

1. Publish the process.

2. Give it the force and effect of a rule, binding on "future" ITACs.

3. Use it to set the weight on all cars.

From what I gather, that may be difficult for some of the responisble members.

complete agreement in kind, though - this mess needs to be cleaned up, somehow. I don't see why a class by class rework simillar to "the great realignment" is so feared. is there honestly fear of mass resentment by the membership for fixing the current state of affairs? I find that difficult (but not impossible) to believe.

[Chip42]

Dropping existing classifications due to lack of participation has precedent in Production. this would certinaly prune the list, making the herculean task of going through an entire category a bit more manageable.

I for one wouldn't formally suggest a full group reclass as it's obviously a TON of work. But I think that a valid member request for a reclassification or correction using updated REAL WORLD information such as dyno plots or flow bench numbers or even on track results (if only to demonstrate the inequity not to prove it) should be considered reasonable by everyone involved. this is where the current ITCS language stands in the way from what I can see. and from what I gather, the CRB is not interested in helping change it.

But what shop manual do you copy pages from to support a request to change the rules???

[JoshS]

this is where the current ITCS language stands in the way from what I can see. and from what I gather, the CRB is not interested in helping change it.

I don't think that's true, I think there will be support from the CRB.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with this. They have specifically asked us to look at that rule, and whether we think it should be changed.

I don't think that's true, I think there will be support from the CRB.

[Chip42]

Regarding changes to the classification review language in the ITCS:

I don't think that's true, I think there will be support from the CRB.

wow. ok, so who's drafting the new language for the proposal? submit it, and I for one will write in support of it. I can see a few others would too, assuming it meets with our expectations.

and defines error...

[lateapex911]

Or doesn't NEED to define "error". Because it's a much more open system, and doesn't have to rely on the "error clause " as an end around way to adjust cars.

(Because, according to the CRB, that's what we were doing...)

[JoshS]

ok, so who's drafting the new language for the proposal? submit it, and I for one will write in support of it. I can see a few others would too, assuming it meets with our expectations.

As I said earlier, the ITAC will do it, and I will make sure to incorporate input from the CRB so we hopefully won't run into too many hurdles on down the road. Please be patient, it will be a while. We're talking about a 2012 effective date at the earliest. We will dedicate one of our summer meetings to it. I'm sure it will go on beyond that though. At some point if we can internally agree on a strategy, we'll put out a draft and request member input, continue to work on it after that, and then eventually submit the proposal up the chain for approval.

[Ron Earp]

We're talking about a 2012 effective date at the earliest. We will dedicate one of our summer meetings to it. I'm sure it will go on beyond that though.

You've got to be kidding. Committees of the same size have coordinated the construction of the world's largest structures and planned successful invasions of countries. I'd suggest you aim a bit higher.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mmmm, fun! Let me play!

Solely my opinion:

1. The higher ups see it (a complete processing of all cars) as a "mass comp adjustment" that is not appropriate for IT. Under our existing rules, there is more merit to that argument than you would think.

Pffft. Crock. Yes, it will adjust the competition level of any class. But so will classing a new car in the exact same way. Don't let anyone hide behind that excuse. Push to define 'comp adjustment'. Bringing cars in line with each other based on specs is SOOOO different than making an adjustment based on results.

2. I have some concern about reprocessing every car, personally. It's easy to do the process math on a mid 90s Honda, or a 12a rotary. But try to find accurate specs on say an early 70s Fiat, or a 1968 Corvair. Lots of errors could be made, and it will be a Herculean task. Josh, however, has come up with a great (partial) solution, which is to simply delete the weights for older, problematic cars that aren't raced and allow the weight to be relisted (via the process, and research) if someone requests it.

^^^ This.

I remember being initially opposed to the whole "reprocess everything" idea given the amount of work it seemed to be, and the potential for error. But, I think the events of the last six months make it clear (to me) that that is exactly what we should do.

1. Publish the process.

2. Give it the force and effect of a rule, binding on "future" ITACs.

3. Use it to set the weight on all cars.

Of course this is the solution. Add the Process date in the notes section of the ITCS. Reprocess' will not be considered unless proof that an error was made in the calculation.

[lateapex911]

Mmmm, fun! Let me play!



Pffft. Crock. Yes, it will adjust the competition level of any class. But so will classing a new car in the exact same way. Don't let anyone hide behind that excuse. Push to define 'comp adjustment'. Bringing cars in line with each other based on specs is SOOOO different than making an adjustment based on results.



.

THATS a major issue, as my definition of "Comp adjustment" is "adjusting a car because I think I've seen it be too competitive or not competitive enough".

But, the CRB tells us that any change is a comp adjustment....I've gone round and round on this with Dowie.

[gran racing]

I don't see why a class by class rework simillar to "the great realignment" is so feared.

Aren't things good enough right now? IT seems pretty darn healthy to me. (Not my words or feelings)

Then there are the Charlies of the world who feel that just because a driver & car combo is fast, they shouldn't have the car evaluated based on what it's potential actually is. Or if the darn process was actually published for everyone including him to see, all of this would make a lot more sense.

I've always thought that approaching this on a request basis would be the best approach. If Tom who drives a CRX cares enough to write in, do it. If other drivers of another car don't, then don't worry about it. Do publish something in the GCR noting when it was reviewed again. Lets not forget that at least in ITB, a BUNCH of cars have already been reviewed. Even if the process has been changed a bit (no idea how close it currently is to when those cars were looked at again), use that as a guide to determine what cars should receive priority. MR2? Duh. I was so smart to distract Guilick on that call!! LOL

There's also irony in all of this since after the IT review was stopped, there was a certain car make which received an interesting brake upgrade allowance just in time for the runoffs.