Wheel width, ITB, again

[jjjanos]

I'm going to try to make a point here that's CLEARLY in the realm of semantics, but argue that it's crucial to this - and a lot of other - conversations: It's problematic to apply a term or concept to different levels of granularity, without recognizing that they mean different things or have different implications.

For example, arguing that (whatever) is the same for the entire category as it is to individual cases of cars or entrants IN that category can result in bad policy and unintended consequences, or at least result in specious arguments.

"Competition adjustment" - As traditionally applied, these are make/model-specific changes in specification, applied to either improve the competitive position of one car or to hobble one other. They are almost always based on observed on-track competitiveness, most notably from results at high-profile events like the Rub-Offs. The current ITAC changing a process or practice applicable to the entire category is by definition not a competition adjustment, EVEN IF some individual examples of car get "adjusted" as a result of being out of line.

Which is some fine and fancy footwork that allows you to reconcile making competition adjustments while remaining true to the doctrine of no competition adjustments. Essentially, you are trying to argue that it wasn't cheating "cause Honey, I was thinking of you the entire time."

1. Whether they admit it, and whether they recognize it, the ITAC used observed on-track performance and other similar taboo observations in determining that changes to the categorization method was required. If the ITAC didn't use this, they wouldn't have known that there was any need to alter the categorization or have a Great Realignment. The Great Realignment and the FWD adder proposal did not derive from "First Principles" and a thought experiment. They occured because of what was observed. The fact that the realignment worked does not mean that this was not a prod-like adjustment; The fact that it worked means that IT was better at it than Prod.

2. The changes were done because some cars were better and some cars were worse and the ultimate purpose was to adjust the competition balance. Whether it is done to an entire community (IT policy) or specific members (Prod policy) is irrelevant - that's a matter of scope, not intent. Again, the fact that it was needed to restore competition balance doesn't mitigate the competition adjustment - the catch all "no car guaranteed competiveness" clause already addressed the concerns of the cars that needed realignment.

3. Prod makes changes that renders the investment made in certain cars and equipment on those cars less valuable. Changing FWD adders does the same thing. Again, only a difference in scope.

I'm in favor of getting the system correct, but let's call these changes what they are - competition adjustments.

[Knestis]

Which is some fine and fancy footwork that allows you to reconcile making competition adjustments while remaining true to the doctrine of no competition adjustments. ...

1. Whether they admit it, and whether they recognize it, the ITAC used observed on-track performance and other similar taboo observations in determining that changes to the categorization method was required. ...

2. The changes were done because some cars were better and some cars were worse and the ultimate purpose was to adjust the competition balance. Whether it is done to an entire community (IT policy) or specific members (Prod policy) is irrelevant ...

...I'm in favor of getting the system correct, but let's call these changes what they are - competition adjustments.

I could couch this in terms of "agree to disagree" but I prefer "You are wrong."

You have a definition of "competition adjustment" that's very different in important functional ways but that's fine, as long as the audience understands the distinctions I'm trying to make.

You're also ascribing motivations to others without knowing much about what's really going on. Again, that's understandable, you're always allowed your opinions, and it's only a problem for me if others buy into your suppositions. I was charged by the ITAC to review a bunch of ITB cars against current practices, most of which I have absolutely no understanding of in terms of their on-track performance. And frankly, I don't trust my own observations for those with which I AM familiar, because I know good and well they are biased and based on gawdawful small samples of cases with a zillion uncontrolled variables.

I totally understand your point about obvserved performance contributing to the "motivations" for looking at problematic cases but there's a world of difference between that and using those differences as evidence to actually change race weights (for example). Members perceive inequalities and ask us to "do something." All we can do is review make/model specs to see if they align to current, consistent practices and make a recommendation to the Board for a change if they don't.

The difference between that and "The Renault Encore is too fast, give it 200 pounds" should be self-evident. That's all I care about.

Again, these can be narrow distictions (or "fancy footwork?") but I believe strongly that there's a FAR lower chance of shenanigans when changes - call them whatever you want - are applied to the entire category in transparent, repeatable ways; than when they are applied as exceptions to individual make/model cases. Those shenanigans are to be avoided. Change is not inherently evil.

THAT'S the key, important difference in our understandings, I think...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

JJJ,

I am also going to tell you that you are wrong. What happened was simple. A member of the ITAC, developed a 'process'. That process was designed for new car classifications because there was no set way to do things. Call it an early effort to be consistant and repeatable. Darin Jordan deserves much credit for this.

We then applied the process to the category to see what stuck out. It was no surprise to anyone that the overdogs were too light for the bogies and the underdogs were too heavy. A BROAD sweep of the category (anything over or under by 100lbs was looked at) showed some bad situations - on the plus and minus sides. So the great realignment 'reset' those cars to exactly how they would have been if they were classes 'newly' at that moment in time because they were so far out of whack. The process wouldn't have been as effective as it was if the outliers weren't measured by the same stick to bring everyone to center so we could move forward as a category. It had NOTHING to do with direct on-track performance.

Greg,

The only flaw I see in your thought process is that we would have in a few years what we have now - and had 5 years ago. What if in 5 years 15x7's are in short supply? What if SM decides 16x8 is the spec wheel? Under the assumption that the supply of wheels is dynamic, why not just allow anything that meets the fitament rules?

Not saying that is what I would like to do, just saying that it might be the best long-term solution...and might be the worst short term solution as well. Is a happy medium the right thing or do we just rip the band-aid off really fast in hopes of no long-term scars?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Stephen,

Why is your opinion different if a car came with 7" wheels stock? You say that on one hand and on the other you state, with no reservations, that "If we change the rules it should have nothing to do with availability or cost for the members regardless on how many are affected."

The only reason I could see you wanting a change based on stock sizes WOULD be availablility (like, I already HAVE them) and cost (like, I already HAVE them).

[StephenB]

Stephen,

Why is your opinion different if a car came with 7" wheels stock? You say that on one hand and on the other you state, with no reservations, that "If we change the rules it should have nothing to do with availability or cost for the members regardless on how many are affected."

The only reason I could see you wanting a change based on stock sizes WOULD be availablility (like, I already HAVE them) and cost (like, I already HAVE them).

Andy,

I think Josh basically answered it for me. I think that the Purpose of IT is for cars to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as offered for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer's specification except for modifications permitted by these rules.

That is the only reason that I think we would ever need to change to a 7" rule. NOT because of Cost or availability. Again if was because of Cost or Availabilty I should be able to change brake calipers due to the Availability of them. Basically the purpose and intent of the IT catagory superseeds (sp) the rule limitations of 6" on cars that are being classified that come from the factory with 7".

Hope this clarifies and you see why I think it is different.
Stephen

[Knestis]

>> Applying the current practice to a subset of cars begins to smell of adjustments. Why were those cars selected? I suspect because they were "out of whack," and that's where subjectivity enters and becomes a comp adjustment.

Ah - good question. For the ITB data collection effort, we started with the cars we could find evidence were being raced, but the list grew to include pretty much the entire class, less a handful of real oddballs. "How many" get submitted to the Board for approval is still an open question. We are obligated to do any that members request and, while it's one popular position within the ITAC that we should do a wholesale Great Realignment II, we're not sure the Board will be receptive to the idea.

The "which ones" question might indeed be answered based on how much they are "out of whack" but it's important to remember that we define that based on the difference between the current spec weight and that derived from the current process - not (I repeat, NOT) based on on-track performance. In some cases, this is a LOT - 600, 700, or as much as 900+ pounds in one case. Most of those that are off by more than 200# are too heavy and of course, if the difference is enough, it's an indicator of a candidate for a move to C.

Note that B is kind of a special case because it didn't get a lot of attention during the GR, currently popular cars span a range of generations of technology, and it doesn't take a lot of variability for cars to slop into the specification envelope defined for C.

K

[rlward]

Andy, Rip it off. A fitment rule should pass the test of time if you think about it...regardles of car or class now nad in th future,even if a car happened to b reclassified.

Steven, if cost and availability are not a concern, then your logic would put a strain on all racers in all venues. Cost and availability is a concern to all sanctioning bodies, just look at formula 1.

As far a brake caliper availability, rules allow update or backdate of components, that would include brakes i think.

If the rules are to change, the fitment approach is the best answer for all. It will survive the test of time witout further changes to the rules. An if so, BRING IT ON, write the letter and get on with it! We will all get over the impact in a short time and go on with our planning.

Better to do it now than to wait. Write the letters to bring the wheel issue to a head..Or is this the letter writing place. Fitment rules already existand that would put an end to this seemingly endless debate.

[shwah]

JJJ,
Is a happy medium the right thing or do we just rip the band-aid off really fast in hopes of no long-term scars?

If a change were made - don't pussy-foot around it. Rip away. The only way any new wounds created will heal is over time. The sooner done, the sooner healed.

[Greg Amy]

What if we just removed the width rule all together in IT?

JJJ,
Under the assumption that the supply of wheels is dynamic, why not just allow anything that meets the fitament rules?

A reasonable suggestion. I think you'd find that the vast majority of the cars currently classified in ITB/C could not fit a whole helluva lot more wheel/tire in their bodies within the other rules anyway. Opening the wheel rules (again, done Long Ago for cost-containment) would be unlikely to result in significant improvements in performance (and if a VW Rabbit GTi guy wants to run 22x8 blingers under there, hell, I say knock yerself out... ).

I suggest, however, that as we move on to new(er) cars being classified, you'll find that the potential ITB cars can and do come with 15" wheels at a minimum (are modern cars still shipped with 14" wheels?), and very likely 7" diameters stock. This is purely a "gut" feel, I have not done even a hint of research on that... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree on the diameter comment but I think 7" wide rims are not typical of the cars that make up ITB (grocery getters).

[jjjanos]

You have a definition of "competition adjustment" that's very different in important functional ways but that's fine, as long as the audience understands the distinctions I'm trying to make.

I understand the distinction. I consider it a distinction without a difference.

I was charged by the ITAC to review a bunch of ITB cars against current practices, most of which I have absolutely no understanding of in terms of their on-track performance.

Which, IMO, is close to, but quite a non-competition adjustment. Applying current practice in a uniform, blind manner is content neutral. Applying the current practice to a subset of cars begins to smell of adjustments. Why were those cars selected? I suspect because they were "out of whack," and that's where subjectivity enters and becomes a comp adjustment. They were picked because their current potential/actual performance was felt to be out of line with their true/process potential.

I'm not saying that hitting the cars most of whack first is the wrong approach. Resources get allocated to the greatest need. It's the implication that the list is an ending point.

I totally understand your point about obvserved performance contributing to the "motivations" for looking at problematic cases but there's a world of difference between that and using those differences as evidence to actually change race weights (for example).

The differences have to be used - either upfront or in the back of the mind - when adjusting the process (see FWD revised adder) - if only as a sanity check. Example - Aren't different engine makes given different HP% gains in IT trim? Those numbers came from somewhere and if Studebaker came out with a new engine that allows for quantum leap in HP gain in IT trim, I'd be shocked if the old 10% gain assumption continued to be used in the face of a 25% gain for a new generation of engines.

Members perceive inequalities and ask us to "do something." All we can do is review make/model specs to see if they align to current, consistent practices and make a recommendation to the Board for a change if they don't.

I've got no problem with the Von Braun approach where someone pushes the button and doesn't care where it comes down, but people with influence have been discussing changing the FWD adder and including a torque adder and ..... At that point, the operator stops pushing the button and starts to pick the target. Moreover, the selection of the values for the new, hypothetical inputs will be guided and determined by the goal of preserving overall category balance. And I encourage such guidance.

It's the Holy than Thou/we're better than Prod & GT because we don't do what they do that bothers me, because, ultimate IT does and will do that. The real difference is that IT does it better and that's entirely to the credit of the ITAC. Moreover, if/when the ITAC gets a better handle on torque or aero or FWD or KERS, they'll still do it better.

In this particular case - drivers forced to buy new wheels because of class movement - allowing a spec line adjustment would neither have been a competition adjustment, a denouncement of uniformity, nor the slippery slope. It would have been a narrow and limited exception applying common sense to an arbitrary standard and it could have been uniformly applied. I.e. Only to cars that moved classes. Instead, we had adherence to the standard for the sake of the standard.

Stuff

I'll acknowledge that I'm wrong and the primary motivation was to provide consistency. That the adjustment resulted in overdogs getting fat and underdogs getting light and the unwashed middle getting little of anything suggests that the codification had to guided by what was occuring on track.

The fact that the end result was so good tells me a great deal of thought went into codification, particularly because once this was emplaced, recalibration wasn't going to happen. To get it this right that specific attributes needed to have approximate factors without real world observations implies far too much luck. The adders weren't just picked at random - something guided them.