So, what TRULY matters...?

A rookie racers opinion. I would like to see the same process applied to all cars (the FWD weight reduction is fine as long as it is applied to all FWD cars, just like the double wishbone adder is applied to all cars with double wishbones) Even if it looks like it will make a car a over/underdog then if it does then adjust the weight.

On a side note I have been lurking around these forums for a while and have not been able to figure the exact formula that is used to class cars. Is there somewhere that says double wishbone gets 50lbs, front wheel drive gets - 100lbs and list all the possible adders/subtractors and list what things the ITAC adjusts on each car?
 
Yes, we have PCA's to correct a "CRX" if we have to...but why waste a couple years and tons of dollars (non-"CRX" dollars) asking people to run against a car they can't compete with? It does the class and the category NO GOOD. They will find places where they perceive there to be more parity.

I do not believe turning a blind eye with the intent for correction helps anyone. I believe in trying to get it right proactively in the most ethical manner possible. *I* think it leads to a much more stable situation from the beginning, the inside and the outside. PCA's are still there to fix a screw up...but WHY HAVE THEM if you know they are coming?

Like I said, I will try my best to get it right on the front end and take my lumps.
 
Hmmmmm Andy's fix it before it's broke message is winning me over as long as I can see the math with how each cars weight was came up with.
 
DavidM said:
The purist in me says run the formula and go. The utopianist in me says subjectivity is needed to level the playing field as best we can. I personally think most people would like to see an attempt at leveling the playing field even if they know it's flawed and won't be perfect.
Click to expand...

nicely put
 
>> ...Also control the volume of 'please run this car through the process again' requests - (speaking of, is my request dead on the vine?)

:happy204:

LOL - you can tell all your friends that your request actually helped precipitate revisiting some big questions among the ITAC. We kind of reached a point with several "review" requests of cars that members didn't think made sense, where we couldn't actually define specs for them under the process without hashing through consensus on some of the philosophical issues that have come up here. Your request is VERY MUCH still alive, albeit tabled pending discussion of some first principles.

This happens every once in a while. Processes that are working OK get to a point where they have to accommodate anomalous situations, so what seemed like they would be simple specific decisions become fodder for hashing out bigger issues.

I'm NOT going to get in the business of trying to convince anyone of anything in this discussion since I TRULY wanted to generate discussion for input. (Welcome back from me too, Bill!) Suffice to say that (a) I am far closer to the position than Greg describes than other positions, and (b) I am in the distinct minority on the ITAC. In the interest of full disclosure, I THINK that there is a substantial proportion of the membership that shares this orientation but if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

A few thoughts, in response to points raised...

** The FWD subtractor is applied absolutely. As is the A-arm suspension adder. Those are binary, yes/no things that are very objective. More subjectively, we can consider torque, brakes, and transmission ratios. There are no tight guidelines for applying these tweaks.

** We are PRETTY good at applying the engine "power multipliers" consistently, although there have been some questions recently involving consistency over the life of the "new" system.

** We've implemented an internal record-keeping system to document the math applied to any cars subject to members' requests for initial classification or review. This is a HUGE step forward and in hindsight, a lot of questions and issues could have been avoided were there an archive of processes applied during the Great Realignment. Hindsight is 20/20 and volunteer organizations often suffer from a lack of institutional memory.

** I have a STRONG belief that a lot of our perceptions about what kind of car is fast are influenced by who builds and races them. For the life of me, I can't remember EVER seeing a crappy, POS ITS e36 BMW running on free take-off Toyos. Anyone who saw me learning Rd Atl weekend before last wouldn't have run out and built a MkIII Golf because it was the car to have. The Egg wouldn't be thought of as a potential winner today, absent the effort put into the tGA/Kessler example. Car looks like a good choice, serious racers build one, car/driver wins, people put WAY too much stock in the make/model of the car. This influences "what we know" more than most of us are willing to accept.

** I don't believe that transparency has to be linked to a strict formula. Publishing ONE way to establish weights for all cars is no easier/harder than publishing all of the assumptions and math that go into each individual listing. 99% of what you'd all see is no surprise and a clever person with a calculator can infer the math from the new listings.

** A consistent formulaic process also doesn't rule out using different factors for different physical attributes (e.g., engine age and architecture). It's not necessary to just apply a 25% multiplier across all cars, for example. We manage this pretty well already, albeit not with 100% repeatability across make/model examples. Documentation will help this situation over time.

** The issues complicate our lives enormously where we have attributes specific to only one make/model (e.g., the rotaries), or where we think we know something other than the basic assumptions (e.g., the 1st generation MR2).

This IS a great conversation. Than you all.

K
 
I think with the changes made in the past few years IT is one of the most stable, competitive classes in club racing. IT is growing because we have a limited rule set that makes 80-90% of the classed cars possible winners. Some will take more time and money than others but it can be done. Sticking to a strict, no options formula would kill all that. The purist think they are sticking to their moral high ground but it will be at the expense of the "not car of the year" driver. You will create underdogs that will quit, and overdogs that make the rest quit. All that will be left are those that don't care about winning, or those that buy the car to have. Sound familiar??? I think we were headed that direction in a few classes not long ago. Use your best information, do your best to get it right, and fix what you screw up. Thats all we can ask. Only an idiot ignores the obvious.:p
 
seckerich said:
I think with the changes made in the past few years IT is one of the most stable, competitive classes in club racing. IT is growing because we have a limited rule set that makes 80-90% of the classed cars possible winners. Some will take more time and money than others but it can be done. Sticking to a strict, no options formula would kill all that. The purist think they are sticking to their moral high ground but it will be at the expense of the "not car of the year" driver. You will create underdogs that will quit, and overdogs that make the rest quit. All that will be left are those that don't care about winning, or those that buy the car to have. Sound familiar??? I think we were headed that direction in a few classes not long ago. Use your best information, do your best to get it right, and fix what you screw up. Thats all we can ask. Only an idiot ignores the obvious.:p
Click to expand...

To this I say, well put.

(PS: Saw your old car at WGI this weekend...nice!)
 
Kirk, you said:

** The FWD subtractor is applied absolutely. As is the A-arm suspension adder. Those are binary, yes/no things that are very objective. More subjectively, we can consider torque, brakes, and transmission ratios. There are no tight guidelines for applying these tweaks.

While the FW subtractor is applied absolutely, its amount was decided subjectively.

Not quibbling, just pointing out that unless the system is ONLY stock hp X expected IT gain X class hp/weight, there is subjectivity in all of it. Hell, in a sense, there is subjectivity is picking manufacturer hp ratings (which can be just as wrong as dynos) as the base.

I do personally believe the subjectivity is the minimum required and that there is enough aversion to using it on the ITAC that you guys have on the whole produced a great result. IT is thriving again. 26 S cars at Daytona in a week and a half, Porsches, Datsuns, BMWs, Mazdas, Olds, Triumphs.....
 
Jeff the adders you point out were certainly determined in a subjective manner but they do pass the test of Repeatability - Consistency – Transparency.
They can be documented and put in a formula. The question is how do you deal with the ones that are not documented. Torque, ratios, mid-engine, aero and such. Can you build a formula that actually work for all these variations or is there a point at which subjective opinions should be applied for the heath of the category?
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
To this I say, well put.

(PS: Saw your old car at WGI this weekend...nice!)
Click to expand...

Thanks Andy. Jeff McCandless is having a great time with it and getting faster every week. I miss it so much I bought one to race this week. Plan is to do the VIR 13hr race. I miss IT enough I will probably build a new ITS RX7 this winter. Planned to build the RX8 when I sold it but you know how that turned out.:rolleyes:
 
dickita15 said:
Jeff the adders you point out were certainly determined in a subjective manner but they do pass the test of Repeatability - Consistency – Transparency.
They can be documented and put in a formula. The question is how do you deal with the ones that are not documented. Torque, ratios, mid-engine, aero and such. Can you build a formula that actually work for all these variations or is there a point at which subjective opinions should be applied for the heath of the category?
Click to expand...

I think this is why we call it a process and not a formula. The adders for torque, transmission, etc are documented in terms of the weight applied but they are certainly added in a subjective manner. The thought process is to apply them when the charateristic is an anomoly within the class.

I don't think anyone would argue that IT is at it's healthiest in years...so I challenge the "it doesn't work, it can't work, it will never work" statements.
 
If HP is viewed with a more formula-like approach, why shouldn't torque? Maybe this is one item that needs to be tweeked with the process.
 
Knestis said:
>>
** I don't believe that transparency has to be linked to a strict formula. Publishing ONE way to establish weights for all cars is no easier/harder than publishing all of the assumptions and math that go into each individual listing. 99% of what you'd all see is no surprise and a clever person with a calculator can infer the math from the new listings.

K
Click to expand...


That, in my mind, is the answer to transparency. Each car should have a well defined, and published process that could include comments from the board as to how they determined it's final weight. No smoke and mirrors with that approach..
 
HP + TQ / 2 = Power Number

Run a few cars through the process with that formula and see how close you come without the tweaking for torque. Insert the power number in place of the HP number.
 
seckerich said:
HP + TQ / 2 = Power Number

Run a few cars through the process with that formula and see how close you come without the tweaking for torque. Insert the power number in place of the HP number.
Click to expand...
I have tried it. It unfortunately takes the perceived balance we have now and kills it.

The low torque/high revvers get lighter (RX-7) and the big torque low-revvers get heavier. If we feel there is a gross inequity in what is happening now, I can see going that route - but I don't.
 
seckerich said:
I think with the changes made in the past few years IT is one of the most stable, competitive classes in club racing. IT is growing because we have a limited rule set that makes 80-90% of the classed cars possible winners. Some will take more time and money than others but it can be done. Sticking to a strict, no options formula would kill all that. The purist think they are sticking to their moral high ground but it will be at the expense of the "not car of the year" driver. You will create underdogs that will quit, and overdogs that make the rest quit. All that will be left are those that don't care about winning, or those that buy the car to have. Sound familiar??? I think we were headed that direction in a few classes not long ago. Use your best information, do your best to get it right, and fix what you screw up. Thats all we can ask. Only an idiot ignores the obvious.:p
Click to expand...


Steve,

It's never been about a 'strict, no options formula', at least not w/ me. From the very beginning, I've advocated a defined model w/ adjustments where warranted (I'm pretty sure Kirk can vouch for this). I think that the whole notion of Prod-style competition adjustments has left such a bad taste in people's mouths that they don't want to see any kind of post-classification adjustment, as it will surely lead to Prod-style competition adjustments by next week. If you don't think that's the case, just look at the language that's used. 'Performance Compensation Adjustments', people don't even want to hear the term 'competition adjustments' in IT. But point of fact is, that any deviation from an objective model, either before or after classification, is in fact a competition adjustment.

Let me throw out a hypothetical (maybe not so much) situation. Let's fast-forward to the time when ABS is allowed on IT cars (and if you don't think it will be someday, you're kidding yourself). So, it's decided that cars w/ ABS can now run it. The ITAC sets a given weight amount for an 'adder'. Cars w/ ABS now get another XX lbs added to their process weight. Now, fast-forward another year or two. Let's say that it turns out that XX wasn't the right number (doesn't matter if it was too high or too low, just that it wasn't right. Granted, it will be easier to make a case if it's too low). What do you do? Do you go back and say "It has been determined that XX# for ABS is incorrect, we're changing it to YY#."? What else would you call that besides a competition adjustment?

I do not believe turning a blind eye with the intent for correction helps anyone. I believe in trying to get it right proactively in the most ethical manner possible. *I* think it leads to a much more stable situation from the beginning, the inside and the outside. PCA's are still there to fix a screw up...but WHY HAVE THEM if you know they are coming?
Click to expand...

I'll buy that Andy, but if you're going to take that approach, I think you need to take it a step further. You need to document what the 'pure' process weight is, and what the adjustments are, and why they're being applied. In essence, you're doing a PCA at the same time you're classifying the car. Which is what you're already doing today, when you're deviating from process weight. It's just that it would be all out in the open. You guys have already put in place most (all?) of the tools that you need to do this. Use them. This goes to the whole transparency thing.

I'd like to make a comment on the subject of 'adders'. I think the ITAC did a great job in developing what's seemingly become a good, solid classification model that has gotten the cars pretty damn close. I think a way to refine that is to switch from a set weight amount for a given adder, to a percentage of car weight. To me, 50# on a 3000# car that makes 200 hp is a lot different than 50# on a 2000# car that makes 120 hp. I know this issue was discussed when we were working on the ITR car list. IIRC, it was felt that a 50# 'negative adder' for FWD may not be enough, given the makeup of ITR. I think that would be a step towards better refining the model.

Bottom line is, you'll never make everyone happy. However, if you develop something that addresses the three areas that Kirk lists, you'll have something that you can point to and say that it's as fair as possible. If people want closer parity, let them run spec cars. Eventually you get to a point of diminishing return, and you've gotten to the point in the S/N ratio that driver ability is the dominant factor.

And thanks for the kind words guys. As you can see, this is still something I believe in.
 
Bill Miller said:
I'll buy that Andy, but if you're going to take that approach, I think you need to take it a step further. You need to document what the 'pure' process weight is, and what the adjustments are, and why they're being applied. In essence, you're doing a PCA at the same time you're classifying the car. Which is what you're already doing today, when you're deviating from process weight. It's just that it would be all out in the open. You guys have already put in place most (all?) of the tools that you need to do this. Use them. This goes to the whole transparency thing.

I'd like to make a comment on the subject of 'adders'. I think the ITAC did a great job in developing what's seemingly become a good, solid classification model that has gotten the cars pretty damn close. I think a way to refine that is to switch from a set weight amount for a given adder, to a percentage of car weight. To me, 50# on a 3000# car that makes 200 hp is a lot different than 50# on a 2000# car that makes 120 hp. I know this issue was discussed when we were working on the ITR car list. IIRC, it was felt that a 50# 'negative adder' for FWD may not be enough, given the makeup of ITR. I think that would be a step towards better refining the model.

Bottom line is, you'll never make everyone happy. However, if you develop something that addresses the three areas that Kirk lists, you'll have something that you can point to and say that it's as fair as possible. If people want closer parity, let them run spec cars. Eventually you get to a point of diminishing return, and you've gotten to the point in the S/N ratio that driver ability is the dominant factor.
Click to expand...

And this is what Kirk is documenting on every call. HP, multiplier, adders, final weight.

I also agree it should be % based. There is discussion right now (debate) about running every car through the process and setting at its 'exact' weight instead of the +/-100 and it's ok deal. This would be a good time to implement something like the % idea...but its a tough road on that deal.
 
i'm with bill for the most part on the second half of the message.

i don't get as caught up in language, maybe because i haven't been around IT that long, so i really don't care what is or isn't a "competition adjustment." all i care about is that you don't add weight just because some car wins the ARRC or ITTC like they do for the RO's.

i guess i care less about the transparancy thing than others do, because from my view all this documentation creates substantial add'l work for the ITAC. yes, it would be nice for it all to be on the books and in the open, but it's still just a few guys volunteering their time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top