AWD in IT...
- Thread starter theenico
- Start date
Ron Earp
Administrator
Kirk,
What makes you say that is any harder than dealing with the IT board only? I mean, the net effect is the same, just to class a AWD car in IT. all they need to do is change one sentence, is that all that difficult to get done? Once that is done a conservative classification on an AWD cars needs to be done and we've got a new dimension to IT.
Who would really object to it and why would they object? Just because AWD cars have never been allowed before? Just trying to learn about the process but with comments that I see about the process I'm beginning to think I don't want to know.
------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS
What makes you say that is any harder than dealing with the IT board only? I mean, the net effect is the same, just to class a AWD car in IT. all they need to do is change one sentence, is that all that difficult to get done? Once that is done a conservative classification on an AWD cars needs to be done and we've got a new dimension to IT.
Who would really object to it and why would they object? Just because AWD cars have never been allowed before? Just trying to learn about the process but with comments that I see about the process I'm beginning to think I don't want to know.
------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS
The culture of the club makes it hard to change, that's all. There is a mechanism for adding cars to IT within the established norms, and that is relatively easy. (Easier and far more equitable now than it has been, thanks to the work of the current ITAC.)
Asking the rules makers to think about a complex question like AWD cars in IT is going to require enough of a paradigm shift that I EXPECT it won't even be considered very carefully.
Understand that most of the rule changes in classes other than IT move forward from the proposition that any request comes from someone trying to gain a relative competitive advantage - a result of decades under the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause.
There is no system in place, prepared proactively to deal with decisions of a strategic nature, grounded in questions like, "How do we position Club Racing classes in an evolving auto enthusiast market?"
People used to (a) most questions being "I want less lead," or (
IT not even ASKING questions like that, are going to seize up on something like this.
"Too hard."
"Somone's gonna be pissed."
"I get nothing for owning this issue."
"Screw it."
"Not consistent with the category philosophy."
(I'll be you a beer on that response, so SOMEONE needs to actually submit the request!)
K
Asking the rules makers to think about a complex question like AWD cars in IT is going to require enough of a paradigm shift that I EXPECT it won't even be considered very carefully.
Understand that most of the rule changes in classes other than IT move forward from the proposition that any request comes from someone trying to gain a relative competitive advantage - a result of decades under the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause.
There is no system in place, prepared proactively to deal with decisions of a strategic nature, grounded in questions like, "How do we position Club Racing classes in an evolving auto enthusiast market?"
People used to (a) most questions being "I want less lead," or (
IT not even ASKING questions like that, are going to seize up on something like this."Too hard."
"Somone's gonna be pissed."
"I get nothing for owning this issue."
"Screw it."
"Not consistent with the category philosophy."
(I'll be you a beer on that response, so SOMEONE needs to actually submit the request!)
K
lateapex911
Super Moderator
It's like anything Ron....just getting a variance for new garage bay of a foot can be a huge deal in some towns.
I think something of this nature might work like this:
If the concept is submitted, the ITAC would discuss it, and in this case perhaps discuss it with the CRB to see if it "fits" with the "big picture" of classing...if so, it could be put up for member comment, which could result in a general consensus, or maybe not!
If the members are strongly for it, the ITAC would then rediscuss it with the CRB, who could then modify, or agree or deny it, and then the CRB could make a recommnedation, and put it up to the BoD to decide. At that level, you'll run into more big picture strategies, hopefully, as well as personal biases that may have been formed by hopeful input from guys like you, and me discussing it with our Bod members directly of via correspondence..
It's the obvious goal of the system to prevent unintended consequences, and to serve the membership at large. And sometimes that means protecting us from ourselves...unfortunetly, "mission statements" and overall strategies either don't exist, or are not communicated to members effectively, so issues of this level are dealt with on a semi random basis. That could be good for this item, or bad.
Of course, no system is perfect, and this one has tripped on itself on occasions. No sanctioning body has done as well with such a large contingent of cars and members though, so it's not all bad. And I think it's made HUGE strides forward, especially in the areas of the sub commitees and communications via them and the membership at large.
A few issues that may come up would be...
Is now a good time to add AWD while the "reorg" is ongoing in IT?
Can we identify the affects of AWD in it's various guises effectively to class them fairly?
Will it serve to attract new drivers while not marginilizing existing drivers?
(IF it is done well, and it doesn't affect more pressing matters currently ongoing in IT, I would be all for it)
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 16, 2005).]
I think something of this nature might work like this:
If the concept is submitted, the ITAC would discuss it, and in this case perhaps discuss it with the CRB to see if it "fits" with the "big picture" of classing...if so, it could be put up for member comment, which could result in a general consensus, or maybe not!
If the members are strongly for it, the ITAC would then rediscuss it with the CRB, who could then modify, or agree or deny it, and then the CRB could make a recommnedation, and put it up to the BoD to decide. At that level, you'll run into more big picture strategies, hopefully, as well as personal biases that may have been formed by hopeful input from guys like you, and me discussing it with our Bod members directly of via correspondence..
It's the obvious goal of the system to prevent unintended consequences, and to serve the membership at large. And sometimes that means protecting us from ourselves...unfortunetly, "mission statements" and overall strategies either don't exist, or are not communicated to members effectively, so issues of this level are dealt with on a semi random basis. That could be good for this item, or bad.
Of course, no system is perfect, and this one has tripped on itself on occasions. No sanctioning body has done as well with such a large contingent of cars and members though, so it's not all bad. And I think it's made HUGE strides forward, especially in the areas of the sub commitees and communications via them and the membership at large.
A few issues that may come up would be...
Is now a good time to add AWD while the "reorg" is ongoing in IT?
Can we identify the affects of AWD in it's various guises effectively to class them fairly?
Will it serve to attract new drivers while not marginilizing existing drivers?
(IF it is done well, and it doesn't affect more pressing matters currently ongoing in IT, I would be all for it)
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 16, 2005).]
lateapex911
Super Moderator
I'll use my double post to add a comment...
Before you joined the IT ranks Ron, the very concept of any post classification adjustments (PCAs) was laughed into quick oblivion with the "no guarantee of competiveness" clause on page 1 chapter 1 of the ITCS. It was a total dead end. But people (like me ) kept asking...so who cares what the line says...! Change the paragraph! I campaigned heavily on this board, and in many private conversations and correspondences with our clubs leaders, esp. those on the ITAC, the CRB and the BoD.
It wasn't easy, but gradually, guys like ITAC member George Roffe (Geo) for example, who were hugely against it, came around when specific proposals were made. Bit by bit, the tide turned, and now it exists...the single greatest rules and philosophy shift in the history of the IT category in about 20 years.
(I think it represented more than just a rules change...it was indicative of a shift in the clubs philosophy towards the 'regional driver' and the basic '2 class system', but thats another story)
So, things like this can happen, but it takes time and effort.
Big ships turn slowly.....
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 16, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 16, 2005).]
Before you joined the IT ranks Ron, the very concept of any post classification adjustments (PCAs) was laughed into quick oblivion with the "no guarantee of competiveness" clause on page 1 chapter 1 of the ITCS. It was a total dead end. But people (like me ) kept asking...so who cares what the line says...! Change the paragraph! I campaigned heavily on this board, and in many private conversations and correspondences with our clubs leaders, esp. those on the ITAC, the CRB and the BoD.
It wasn't easy, but gradually, guys like ITAC member George Roffe (Geo) for example, who were hugely against it, came around when specific proposals were made. Bit by bit, the tide turned, and now it exists...the single greatest rules and philosophy shift in the history of the IT category in about 20 years.
(I think it represented more than just a rules change...it was indicative of a shift in the clubs philosophy towards the 'regional driver' and the basic '2 class system', but thats another story)
So, things like this can happen, but it takes time and effort.
Big ships turn slowly.....
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 16, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 16, 2005).]
Bill Miller
New member
Originally posted by Knestis:
The culture of the club makes it hard to change, that's all. There is a mechanism for adding cars to IT within the established norms, and that is relatively easy. (Easier and far more equitable now than it has been, thanks to the work of the current ITAC.)
Asking the rules makers to think about a complex question like AWD cars in IT is going to require enough of a paradigm shift that I EXPECT it won't even be considered very carefully.
Understand that most of the rule changes in classes other than IT move forward from the proposition that any request comes from someone trying to gain a relative competitive advantage - a result of decades under the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause.
There is no system in place, prepared proactively to deal with decisions of a strategic nature, grounded in questions like, "How do we position Club Racing classes in an evolving auto enthusiast market?"
People used to (a) most questions being "I want less lead," or (
"Too hard."
"Somone's gonna be pissed."
"I get nothing for owning this issue."
"Screw it."
"Not consistent with the category philosophy."
(I'll be you a beer on that response, so SOMEONE needs to actually submit the request!)
K
Kirk,
I would think that a lot of the performance estimates and evaluation (or at least "How do we balance this against 2WD cars?") was done when they allowed these cars in SS and T. And while not every SS car makes it to IT, it certainly wouldn't bode well for the resale value of an AWD SS car, once it is no longer allowed to compete in SS.
I'd say, class some cars. The ITAC went out on a limb when they put the New Beetle in ITC, why not do the same w/ some AWD cars.
I don't buy the 'better in the wet' arguement either. There are plenty of cars out there that have advantages under specific conditions. Some are better on short tracks vs. long tracks (and vice-versa). Some are better on more technical tracks vs. ones that are more 'wide-open'. That's just the way cars are, some are better in certain conditions than others. If someone doesn't want that, race a spec series.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Ron Earp
Administrator
Well, George, well, he seems to be against anything that wasn't already done before. Just kidding of course.
So, if PCA's exist and are used then classing an AWD car should be that much easier. If it turns out to be a bad decision and they romp all over the class (not gonna happen) then you can PCA them back to some sort of competitive classification. In this fashion it is a safety net and can be used to "step out of the box" - if that line of thought can be used in SCCAdom.
Bill, you mentioned the Bettle in C as a big jump. What was the big deal? (Car classed already when I considered IT). I don't know much about C so maybe it was a stretch for C, but doesn't that thing only have like 115hp and a weight over 3000lbs on the street? And, if it ran all over C couldn't it be adjusted?
Seems with PCAs the road should be much smoother for trying new things. New things are good - they attract new people, new thoughts, and offer all of us new things to talk about and debate. And, new cars to race against which we could definitely use lest we look like the "The Parade of Jalopies". Of course, I ain't helping that vision with a 31 year old car.....
------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS
Bill Miller
New member
Ron,
I'm not going to go into all the details, but there was a pretty big flap over the NB in ITC. Made more stock hp than pretty much anything else in the class, and weighed a lot more than most anything else in the class. It uses the same engine/drive train as the A3 Golf in ITB, and the A4 Golf/Jetta (which I sent in a request to have classified).
BRW, has anybody seen an ITC NB on the track this year?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Right. I was the one who championed changing the wheel rule despite the fact it does not affect me in the least.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
lateapex911
Super Moderator
My take on George is this-
He has watched the category for a while, and he sees the need for change in certain areas. But he also sees the need for stability, and the desire to keep what has made IT a popular club racing destination.
He also knows that changes can cause inintended consequenses, and is aware of the atual work required to institute change.
My take is that he is one of the more liberal ITAC members...certainly not the most conservative. He has the moxie to post here as well. I think the guys who are less public are those who are more opposed to changes.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
He has watched the category for a while, and he sees the need for change in certain areas. But he also sees the need for stability, and the desire to keep what has made IT a popular club racing destination.
He also knows that changes can cause inintended consequenses, and is aware of the atual work required to institute change.
My take is that he is one of the more liberal ITAC members...certainly not the most conservative. He has the moxie to post here as well. I think the guys who are less public are those who are more opposed to changes.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Ron Earp
Administrator
Jake, this is seems to definitely be true - I like the fact that George posts here and I think that helps the entire community. I have no proof, and I am very new, but my feeling is I'd agree with you that if you're not posting then there might be a tendancy to be extremely conservative - the whole "internet bad, change bad" sort of thing. Obviously tonque in cheek.
George, obviously I'm too new to pick on anyone here and was just poking fun so please don't take my comments seriously. ;-) Not that any of you guys would anyhow!!!
------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS
Hey no sweat Ron. Nobody here has chased me with pitchforks and torches. Yet.
I would never have accepted this role if I wasn't prepared for commentary and criticism. It goes with the territory since we absolutely cannot please everyone.
I think for my part I tend to be very careful of the downsides of possible decisions because I think it would be easier to screw up IT than improve it, but improvements certainly can be made.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
I would never have accepted this role if I wasn't prepared for commentary and criticism. It goes with the territory since we absolutely cannot please everyone.
I think for my part I tend to be very careful of the downsides of possible decisions because I think it would be easier to screw up IT than improve it, but improvements certainly can be made.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Good point Leslie! But then Chris HAS been known to post here, and my take on him is that he makes himself very accessible as well.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I immediatly think of Greg A. when the term 'unintended consiquences' comes to mind.
I don't think AWD in IT is a great idea. If you read between the lines in Ed Tisdales post where he says he will start mocking up a cage for his ix...he might have two cars at the track in a weekend that threatened bad weather. Is THAT good for costs in IT?
I don't think you could set a weight to make it right. In the rain it would run away, in the dry it would, what? Be heavy and uncompetitive or be set properly so it was a viable choice for the class...
Too many variables and too much left up to chance. Is there that much demand to even start chasing our tails? I don't think so. Now if enough support was out there for an all AWD class, then GO FOR IT in your own Region. Maybe it will catch fire ala SM.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited April 18, 2005).]
I don't think AWD in IT is a great idea. If you read between the lines in Ed Tisdales post where he says he will start mocking up a cage for his ix...he might have two cars at the track in a weekend that threatened bad weather. Is THAT good for costs in IT?
I don't think you could set a weight to make it right. In the rain it would run away, in the dry it would, what? Be heavy and uncompetitive or be set properly so it was a viable choice for the class...
Too many variables and too much left up to chance. Is there that much demand to even start chasing our tails? I don't think so. Now if enough support was out there for an all AWD class, then GO FOR IT in your own Region. Maybe it will catch fire ala SM.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited April 18, 2005).]
Ron Earp
Administrator
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
I don't think AWD in IT is a great idea. If you read between the lines in Ed Tisdales post where he says he will start mocking up a cage for his ix...he might have two cars at the track in a weekend that threatened bad weather. Is THAT good for costs in IT?
Costs in IT? Well, the latest issue of Sportscar has a well known BMW 325 that was owned by a well known driver. Price? $37.5k asking. And this is IT?????????????? I imagine the car was $60k new since it was (as I understand it) bought from a company and not built by the owner. And the car did a lot of winning too, with a rookie driver, seems to suggest money can buy wins.
I don't want to digress on that subject since there is a lot there, but price for IT, well, it is not cheap, at least in S and pretending such doesn't make it so.
------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS
[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited April 18, 2005).]
Bill Miller
New member
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
I immediatly think of Greg A. when the term 'unintended consiquences' comes to mind.
I don't think AWD in IT is a great idea. If you read between the lines in Ed Tisdales post where he says he will start mocking up a cage for his ix...he might have two cars at the track in a weekend that threatened bad weather. Is THAT good for costs in IT?
<snip>
AB
Come on Andy, you know you can't control how much the folks that have the $$$ will spend. If someone wants to build a wet and a dry car, they're going to do it. And I'm sorry, but the ECU rule was a clear indication that the powers that be don't give a hang about controlling costs in IT, yet it gets trotted out when it's convenient.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Think whatever you guys want to think. Cost IS a factor when the ITAC discusses issues. The ECU issue was done before *I* was involved and I would love to put it back in the bottle.
You can spend $25K - $50K building ANYTHING. It's not so much the speed of the car, it's the level of prep, the QUALITY of the parts, the attention to detail etc etc etc.
You want a class that some people bring two cars to the race depending on weather conditions? GO FOR IT. It WILL happen.
Then we all lose...except THAT guy.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
You can spend $25K - $50K building ANYTHING. It's not so much the speed of the car, it's the level of prep, the QUALITY of the parts, the attention to detail etc etc etc.
You want a class that some people bring two cars to the race depending on weather conditions? GO FOR IT. It WILL happen.
Then we all lose...except THAT guy.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Bill Miller
New member
I'm sure it already does Andy
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
I agree with Andy. Some of y'all might think we're just being sticks in the mud, but I look at this as there being nothing but heartache. No matter what we did, nobody would end up happy. And I doubt there is really that much demand. There are over 300 lines in the ITCS so there is no issue with too few cars classified IMHO.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com