Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

JoshS said:
... 2) Everyone should re-read the last two paragraphs of 9.1.3.C. Adjusting car weights based solely on the process is not allowed for in the rules as they stand today.

Note that this doesn't mean that no weights can be changed (again, see those sections of 9.1.3.C) and the current ITAC has every intention of using the process to adjust weights when, in fact, adjusting weights is called for. ...
Click to expand...

Thanks, Josh. For reference, that's...

On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle’s class.

But what we must also remember is that - at least in the time I was on the ITAC - we didn't do "please review" weight changes based on that clause. We did it under Errors and Omissions, ostensibly because we found the weights to be "incorrect." And "incorrect" has to be relative to something, and so - again, based on our practices - that benchmark or reference was the weight resulting from our application of the process. And the CRB voted to approve those recommendations, for example:

Dodge/Plymouth Neon RT & ACR (01-03), p. 365, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs): 2670

We didn't do that because this Neon was a "proven" overdog on the track that rose to the level of the CRX situation, that the Performance Compensation Adjustment allowance (the clause Josh cites) was included to deal with.

...SO based on what we're hearing here, the CRB has used the full nuke offensive on the ITAC, essentially removing from their arsenal any weapon they might use to correct a vestigal weight inconsistency. Put simply, we are now at a place where the only catalyst for ANY weight change in IT would be a perceived upset of "equity" similar to that posed by the CRX or the e36 325 in ITS a few years ago.

We've got cars with weights set by several variants of the process, and a bunch set by who-knows-what system from the olden days, and that's just how they're going to stay - unless someone goes too fast...

...because now, since by definition "right" for the purposes of Errors and Omissions, Competition Adjustments, Clarifications, and Classifications can now only be defined by relative on-track performance "equity," the ONLY CASE that can be presented for consideration is the "he's faster than me" kind of appeal. Those that (1) are so very popular in other categories about this time of year after the RubOffs, and (2) the ITAC until last month didn't even consider, knowing they are fraught with huge evidentiary issues.

Swell.

Hey, members...! Remember those letters the ITAC recommended you write, if you saw some obvious misalignment among car weights? Well, don't send 'em. And (fast forward to the logical extension of this) the VERY second that a weight IS adjusted based on a case made by on-track evidence, we've lost all control. Go fast at an important race? You're a target for a 100-pound lead bullet. Fear of competition adjustments (bleah!) will prevent ANY change, or we're well and truly in Production land. No middle ground like the ITAC has spent a lot of time and energy trying to maintain.

And for the 1000th time, I do NOT blame the ITAC. They got told this is how it was going to be by your club leadership.

K
 
Note that this doesn't mean that no weights can be changed (again, see those sections of 9.1.3.C) and the current ITAC has every intention of using the process to adjust weights when, in fact, adjusting weights is called for.
Click to expand...
Gesh Josh, I’m interpreting your post like Kirk in that the recent cars recommended for weight adjustments are not moving forward. Then again, who knows with that “answer”. LOL Sure does sound more flashy than the old “not guaranteed competitiveness” BS although it's still crap.
 
To sum it up from my seat:

  1. The CRB will allow the classification of new cars via the process.
  2. The CRB will not allow 'corrections' to currently listed cars via the process
  3. Overdogs can and will be adjusted. Not exactly sure the methodology for that. I am assuming they would like us to research why its an overdog, take that info and fit it into the process and reset the weight. Not sure how much of a change in weight needs to spit out in order for an action to be taken. Probably the old +/-100lbs. Overdogs will be determined by on-track performance. The definition of an overdog is not known to me. Maybe it's like porn. I will know it when I see it.
  4. The CRB does not have enough confidence in the process to allow us to run everyone through. Specifically, the first step in the process uses stock crank HP. While this is known to be a flawed number, their confidence level is so low, they have stopped pushing through 'corrections' under the errors and ommissions clause.
  5. It is their opinion that ANY change is a competition adjustment because lowering the weight of a car alters the competitive landscape of the class. It is the opinion of the ITAC that the traditional definition of a CA is a change that is made based on track results. What we have been doing are changes based on paper with no 'weight input' from on track results. No 'wiggle room' as it were.
It is my opinion that when we eliminated the wiggle room from the process, the CRB got nervous. Nervous because they have no confidence in stock hp ratings and therefore not much confidence in weights +/- X pounds. We know the process is not an exact science but the CRB worries that it may do more harm than good when dealing with cars whose specs show a lower weight and whose on-track results show the car is competitive as classed.

So we class new cars, change rules as the need arises and deal with overdogs when or if they appear. Effectively, the weights in the ITCS are frozen until an E36-type situation happens.

The CRB has so many classes that they try to balance on the head of a pin. It's a rediculously tough job, but for the larger part, they have been very successful. I believe this is part of the culture and IT flies in the face of that. It is my opinion that the IT community would rather see us class cars the same way, and risk us getting it wrong (create an overdog then have to fix it) than having things left in the ITCS that span 3 ways of classing with limited congruency. My interpretation of that philosophy is simple. 'IT has great car counts, has great parity and the comptitive landscape is excellent now. It's not broken so any change would potentially mess it us for little benefit'.

YMMV.
 
.

Thanks Andy...that summary has helped me understand the issues and the differing perspectives of the players completely. :happy204:

.
 
Thanks for the information Andy. I understand some points but find this whole thing extremely frustrating. Actually beyond that and sure makes me question my hobby.
 
My thanks too, Andy.

I guess that the only hope I have left is that it will indeed be back in stasis, like it was for so long before the GR. I still can't help worrying however that the "Audi situation" isn't about an inch from "we aren't going to make it lighter" to "we're going to make it heavier."

It's massively disappointing to me that it got as close as it did to being the real exception to the traditional traps of the Club's classification process, but I guess that's it.

Those ITAC calls are going to be a lot shorter, huh?

K
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
To sum it up from my seat:

  1. The CRB will allow the classification of new cars via the process.
  2. The CRB will not allow 'corrections' to currently listed cars via the process
  3. Overdogs can and will be adjusted. Not exactly sure the methodology for that. I am assuming they would like us to research why its an overdog, take that info and fit it into the process and reset the weight. Not sure how much of a change in weight needs to spit out in order for an action to be taken. Probably the old +/-100lbs. Overdogs will be determined by on-track performance. The definition of an overdog is not known to me. Maybe it's like porn. I will know it when I see it.
  4. The CRB does not have enough confidence in the process to allow us to run everyone through. Specifically, the first step in the process uses stock crank HP. While this is known to be a flawed number, their confidence level is so low, they have stopped pushing through 'corrections' under the errors and ommissions clause.
  5. It is their opinion that ANY change is a competition adjustment because lowering the weight of a car alters the competitive landscape of the class. It is the opinion of the ITAC that the traditional definition of a CA is a change that is made based on track results. What we have been doing are changes based on paper with no 'weight input' from on track results. No 'wiggle room' as it were.
It is my opinion that when we eliminated the wiggle room from the process, the CRB got nervous. Nervous because they have no confidence in stock hp ratings and therefore not much confidence in weights +/- X pounds. We know the process is not an exact science but the CRB worries that it may do more harm than good when dealing with cars whose specs show a lower weight and whose on-track results show the car is competitive as classed.

So we class new cars, change rules as the need arises and deal with overdogs when or if they appear. Effectively, the weights in the ITCS are frozen until an E36-type situation happens.

The CRB has so many classes that they try to balance on the head of a pin. It's a rediculously tough job, but for the larger part, they have been very successful. I believe this is part of the culture and IT flies in the face of that. It is my opinion that the IT community would rather see us class cars the same way, and risk us getting it wrong (create an overdog then have to fix it) than having things left in the ITCS that span 3 ways of classing with limited congruency. My interpretation of that philosophy is simple. 'IT has great car counts, has great parity and the comptitive landscape is excellent now. It's not broken so any change would potentially mess it us for little benefit'.

YMMV.
Click to expand...


:happy204:CRB. Seriously.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
To sum it up from my seat:

  1. The CRB will allow the classification of new cars via the process.
  2. The CRB will not allow 'corrections' to currently listed cars via the process
  3. Overdogs can and will be adjusted. Not exactly sure the methodology for that. I am assuming they would like us to research why its an overdog, take that info and fit it into the process and reset the weight. Not sure how much of a change in weight needs to spit out in order for an action to be taken. Probably the old +/-100lbs. Overdogs will be determined by on-track performance. The definition of an overdog is not known to me. Maybe it's like porn. I will know it when I see it.
  4. The CRB does not have enough confidence in the process to allow us to run everyone through. Specifically, the first step in the process uses stock crank HP. While this is known to be a flawed number, their confidence level is so low, they have stopped pushing through 'corrections' under the errors and ommissions clause.
  5. It is their opinion that ANY change is a competition adjustment because lowering the weight of a car alters the competitive landscape of the class. It is the opinion of the ITAC that the traditional definition of a CA is a change that is made based on track results. What we have been doing are changes based on paper with no 'weight input' from on track results. No 'wiggle room' as it were.
It is my opinion that when we eliminated the wiggle room from the process, the CRB got nervous. Nervous because they have no confidence in stock hp ratings and therefore not much confidence in weights +/- X pounds. We know the process is not an exact science but the CRB worries that it may do more harm than good when dealing with cars whose specs show a lower weight and whose on-track results show the car is competitive as classed.

So we class new cars, change rules as the need arises and deal with overdogs when or if they appear. Effectively, the weights in the ITCS are frozen until an E36-type situation happens.

The CRB has so many classes that they try to balance on the head of a pin. It's a rediculously tough job, but for the larger part, they have been very successful. I believe this is part of the culture and IT flies in the face of that. It is my opinion that the IT community would rather see us class cars the same way, and risk us getting it wrong (create an overdog then have to fix it) than having things left in the ITCS that span 3 ways of classing with limited congruency. My interpretation of that philosophy is simple. 'IT has great car counts, has great parity and the comptitive landscape is excellent now. It's not broken so any change would potentially mess it us for little benefit'.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately IT just took 2 steps backwards....

Sounds like kakashi racing needs to go find the the next hidden gem and exploit the new rules.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
To sum it up from my seat:

  1. The CRB will allow the classification of new cars via the process.
  2. The CRB will not allow 'corrections' to currently listed cars via the process
  3. Overdogs can and will be adjusted. Not exactly sure the methodology for that. I am assuming they would like us to research why its an overdog, take that info and fit it into the process and reset the weight. Not sure how much of a change in weight needs to spit out in order for an action to be taken. Probably the old +/-100lbs. Overdogs will be determined by on-track performance. The definition of an overdog is not known to me. Maybe it's like porn. I will know it when I see it.
  4. The CRB does not have enough confidence in the process to allow us to run everyone through. Specifically, the first step in the process uses stock crank HP. While this is known to be a flawed number, their confidence level is so low, they have stopped pushing through 'corrections' under the errors and ommissions clause.
  5. It is their opinion that ANY change is a competition adjustment because lowering the weight of a car alters the competitive landscape of the class. It is the opinion of the ITAC that the traditional definition of a CA is a change that is made based on track results. What we have been doing are changes based on paper with no 'weight input' from on track results. No 'wiggle room' as it were.
It is my opinion that when we eliminated the wiggle room from the process, the CRB got nervous. Nervous because they have no confidence in stock hp ratings and therefore not much confidence in weights +/- X pounds. We know the process is not an exact science but the CRB worries that it may do more harm than good when dealing with cars whose specs show a lower weight and whose on-track results show the car is competitive as classed.

So we class new cars, change rules as the need arises and deal with overdogs when or if they appear. Effectively, the weights in the ITCS are frozen until an E36-type situation happens.

The CRB has so many classes that they try to balance on the head of a pin. It's a rediculously tough job, but for the larger part, they have been very successful. I believe this is part of the culture and IT flies in the face of that. It is my opinion that the IT community would rather see us class cars the same way, and risk us getting it wrong (create an overdog then have to fix it) than having things left in the ITCS that span 3 ways of classing with limited congruency. My interpretation of that philosophy is simple. 'IT has great car counts, has great parity and the comptitive landscape is excellent now. It's not broken so any change would potentially mess it us for little benefit'.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

Andy,

Thanks for your candor. Hopefully you don't catch the same kind of grief from the CRB that Kirk did. A couple of comments, none of which are addressed to you, or any of the members of the ITAC, since, as Kirk so succinctly points out, the ITAC is being given their marching orders by the CRB.

One thing that is painfully obvious, based on the above comments. Any car that is currently on the 'wrong' side of its process weight (i.e. heavier than what the process says it should be) is going to stay that way. In some cases, people may feel that is justified, either through evidence that shows that the car sees greater than 25% power gains w/ an IT tune, or through on-track performance. That becomes a semantics issue, and I guess it can be resolved through the application of PCA's. Where the problem lies, is in the cars that are over their process weight, and don't see greater than 25% power gains, and aren't running at the front of the grid. There's no hope for them to see any relief, and what the CRB's position is essentially saying, is "too bad, pick another car if you don't like it (but choose wisely)."

As is usual w/ the CRB, their position on the process is inconsistent. They have enough confidence in it to use it on newly classified cars, but they don't have enough confidence to use it on all the cars in the ITCS. What I read between the lines there, is that they see such a small number of new cars come in every year (when compared to the entire ITCS), and that it will take time (years?) to get those cars sorted, that they won't really make an impact on the status quo in IT, so there's not much risk in using the process. But, there's a big upside, in terms of political mileage. They (CRB) get to point to this 'transparent, objective, repeatable' process that they use (even though it only applies to a VERY small percentage of the cars in the ITCS).

And I think you're wrong Andy, I don't think it's that they don't have confidence in the hp/weight, I think it's that they don't want to give up the ability to do what they want, when they want. There has NEVER been any kind of transparency or objectivity when classing and adjusting cars, regardless of category. What the ITAC has proposed is so foreign to the CRB, they don't know how to wrap their heads around it. Not to mention they don't want to relinquish the power.

What really causes me to scratch my head, is why the CRB is giving IT such a hard line. They've already got the 'no guarantee' clause as an out, why don't they give the IT drivers the category that they want? Put it out for member input. If the IT drivers want all the cars in the ITCS run through the process, why shouldn't that happen?

Hate to say it, but nothing has really changed over the last 5 or so years.
 
:happy204:CRB. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's just great Travis that cars are classed on totally different critera. Awesome, just fucking awesome. We're still at a how the hell is this car classed at this weight when this car is classed at this other weight. Oh, wait. They were treated differently and all we can say is a different board classed it. Yup, the CRB nailed this one alright. Then again you do have an ITA Miata.
 
gran racing said:
Yeah, that's just great Travis that cars are classed on totally different critera. Awesome, just fucking awesome. We're still at a how the hell is this car classed at this weight when this car is classed at this other weight. Oh, wait. They were treated differently and all we can say is a different board classed it. Yup, the CRB nailed this one alright. Then again you do have an ITA Miata.
Click to expand...

That is right, Travis doesn't care because he has an overdog. So now they need to sandbag at a couple of the big events and they shoudl be good! :D
 
gran racing said:
Yeah, that's just great Travis that cars are classed on totally different critera. Awesome, just fucking awesome. We're still at a how the hell is this car classed at this weight when this car is classed at this other weight. Oh, wait. They were treated differently and all we can say is a different board classed it. Yup, the CRB nailed this one alright.
Click to expand...

....because the currently vey successful IT landscape was achieved using this magical process 100% of the time. :rolleyes:
 
The limit on action isn't so much on potential overdogs (that will be triggered by on-track observation) as it is on retroactive 'resets' on cars that have never been listed at their process weight. I think the CRB's position comes down to 'better to be safe and leave those cars alone because if we reset them, we may upset the current very diverse and competitive landscape'.
 
Bill Miller said:
One thing that is painfully obvious, based on the above comments. Any car that is currently on the 'wrong' side of its process weight (i.e. heavier than what the process says it should be) is going to stay that way. In some cases, people may feel that is justified, either through evidence that shows that the car sees greater than 25% power gains w/ an IT tune, or through on-track performance. That becomes a semantics issue, and I guess it can be resolved through the application of PCA's. Where the problem lies, is in the cars that are over their process weight, and don't see greater than 25% power gains, and aren't running at the front of the grid. There's no hope for them to see any relief, and what the CRB's position is essentially saying, is "too bad, pick another car if you don't like it (but choose wisely)."
Click to expand...

Bingo. The short answer is "you aren't guaranteed competitiveness." I think that's a shitty answer.

I still want to know why the CRB has any say over what the various categories do. It's time to get rid of the CRB and have the organizational chart run BOD -> ACs.

Formula drivers know formula cars.
Production drivers know production cars.
IT drivers know IT cars.
 
So what about the cars that are omitedly too heavy and are not overdogs. They will never see the front of the pack to get recognized.. do these car jsut get screwed?

I resurected an ex ITA MR2 knowing it could be competitve ITB if classed right. It was classed with an omited error in percent gain, and I stuck at the wrong weight untill every overdog above it gets weighted down?

If they are going to penalize overdogs (competition adjustments), Shouldn't that mentality help a well preped and well driven underdog? meaning that it should take away weights..
 
Steve, good luck defining the "overdogs" and getting any changes passed through if this is truly the direction IT is going to take. We're taking a huge step backwards and will be back to politics behind closed doors and the stereotypical secret car club of america.

The absolute best thing anyone can do who feels that this is a bad decision is to write the SCCA BOD. Seriously, please take a few minutes and send them an e-mail.

[email protected]
 
Bullshit Dave.

you can prove a car is an overdog today the same way you could previously. Go get dyno results and submit the process output along with on track results to the CRB as evidence for consideration.

The CRB isn't saying the process is completely worthless by any means, they're just saying it's not as infallable as some would like to think. Yes, "we" pay lip service to it by saying we know it's not perfect, but in application "we" act like it's the solution to all of IT's problems.
 
tnord said:
Bullshit Dave.

you can prove a car is an overdog today the same way you could previously. Go get dyno results and submit the process output along with on track results to the CRB as evidence for consideration.

The CRB isn't saying the process is completely worthless by any means, they're just saying it's not as infallable as some would like to think. Yes, "we" pay lip service to it by saying we know it's not perfect, but in application "we" act like it's the solution to all of IT's problems.
Click to expand...

Travis - There will be very few people who agree with that answer. Just Sayin'
 
not currently worried about defining overdog.. what does the CRB want to do with the under dogs? or does that just fall into the "not guaranteed competitiveness" clause?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top