Results 1 to 20 of 572

Thread: Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Bettencourt View Post

    What do you do? (Edit - I originally gave a few options but don't want to lead anyone - PLEASE explain in detail WHY you would do what you did.
    This is when the Process is inadequate. The Process also fails when a capable builder/driver builds a dog (such as Chuck Allard's 911). This is where the ITAC needs to look beyond the limitations of the process, consider the multitude of other information that's available and apply some common sense. Certainly not as easy as sticking to the Process formula. However, I personally trust the ITAC to use good judgment in competition adjustments a lot more then I trust them to come up with a perfect "Process".

    If "Car A" is really that good, there will be plenty more of them running soon enough. I sure hope Car A isn't racing in ITB!

    Maybe I'm expecting too much.

    It is easier for the ITAC to adjust the results of the Process if the details of the Process are not published.

    Charlie

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie Broring View Post
    This is when the Process is inadequate. The Process also fails when a capable builder/driver builds a dog (such as Chuck Allard's 911). This is where the ITAC needs to look beyond the limitations of the process, consider the multitude of other information that's available and apply some common sense. Certainly not as easy as sticking to the Process formula. However, I personally trust the ITAC to use good judgment in competition adjustments a lot more then I trust them to come up with a perfect "Process".

    If "Car A" is really that good, there will be plenty more of them running soon enough. I sure hope Car A isn't racing in ITB!

    Maybe I'm expecting too much.

    It is easier for the ITAC to adjust the results of the Process if the details of the Process are not published.

    Charlie
    You didn't answer my question. I understand you think the process fails here. What would YOU do - and why? Running the exersize through the keyboard helps you think it through and us to understand where we can improve.
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  3. #3

    Default

    Andy, I thought I did answer you question but I'll be more specific. I would ask questions and listen to the answers. The hypothetical Car A that you describe may be very challenging, but I bet all of his fellow competitors at the ARRC have observations. Such as " has a center of gravity below the ground and a real wide track. Nobody can go through a corner like him." or " I saw him filling the nitrous bottle between sessions." Or look at lap times are they all over the place or all the same and a second faster then everybody else.

    Yea, it's more work and time. However, I was recently told by a ITAC member that he "actively avoids" looking beyond the numbers of the Process.

    I think that in some cases correcting for shortcomings in the Process is relatively easy. In the example I sited, the 911 Porsche, a member of the ITAC who is also a ITS driver rep could look at the car, report back that the car is really nicely built, well driven, but has 200# of lead on the floor and runs mid pack ITA times. And if this information was deemed reliable, the ITAC may consider a weight adjustment.

    So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie Broring View Post

    So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.
    I appreciate your response Charlie but what if you only had the information I gave you? The Process can only be so granular. Centers of Gravity? Track width? While they are just examples, how detailed do you expect us to be? And most importantly, how would you like to apply weight given one of these issues?

    Car A just came across our plates. Really. Anyone else want to take a shot?
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie Broring View Post
    ...However, I was recently told by a ITAC member that he "actively avoids" looking beyond the numbers of the Process.
    That was me. I'm not alone in that respect among ITAC members, I don't believe.

    Tom - On the ITB CRX Si, your letter was considered along with a number of others (Gran, at least one Blethen, et al.) as part of the genesis of what got us to where we are right this very second. We did not act on your letter as a particular agenda item, because it didn't ask for a rule change or anything like that, but it did contribute to the conversation.

    The primary issue that we started to address then was the "close enough" question. Recollection among ITAC members on that CRX is consistent with what you describe - it got a chunk of weight when it went to B, pre-process. THEN when the process WAS run on it, it was "within 100 pounds" so it got left alone.

    That is most absolutely NOT how we are currently running the ITAC specification process - which appears to have something to do with why the 20 cars in question are waiting. (And no, the CRX isn't among them.)

    I'd normally suggest that you specifically request that we revisit that car but at this point, we're on hold it appears.

    For the spreadsheet that I keep, what's the stock HP of that car? Is it the same for all years of that generation? Is it the same as the Civic Si...?

    K
    Last edited by Knestis; 08-31-2009 at 12:17 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    ........

    For the spreadsheet that I keep, what's the stock HP of that car? Is it the same for all years of that generation? Is it the same as the Civic Si...?

    K
    as far as i know, and i am quite certain, all 85-87 honda crx si's and civic si's are 1488 cc, 91 HP and 12 valves and same basic suspension geometry (torsion bar and strut up front and beam axle in the back). they are "equivalent" except for the civic is sometimes seemed as more stable (longer wheelbase) and the crx is seen as better aero.

    EDIT: and 93 ft-#'s of torque per this site:

    http://www.sportscarmarket.com/Affor.../2004/January/


    and i will rephrase my original request into two letters. one for to look at the weight of the car and another to support the process.
    Last edited by tom91ita; 08-31-2009 at 12:17 AM.
    1985 CRX Si competed in Solo II: AS, CS, DS, GS
    1986 CRX Si competed in: SCCA Solo II CSP, SCCA ITA, SCCA ITB, NASA H5
    1988 CRX Si competed in ITA & STL

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie Broring View Post
    ...So, may answer is when appropriate to seek information that is not considered by the Process, and more importantly if such information is available, act on it.
    In that kind of a protocol, how would Dave Kerr's 7-year-old VIR ITB lap record of a 2:22.6 figure into deliberations...?

    K

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •