Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

tnord said:
you act like it's an automatic push-button response. i don't think that if a car wins the ARRC it will automatically get weight. but if a few show up, sweep the field, and basically kick the crap out of everyone.....then yeah.....go take a look at what's going on and why that happened.

i didn't like the idea of the miata getting weight based on "process power" because you couldn't justify it. i gave you data, lots of it, showing exactly that. i had a big problem with it because the process that was being used at the time didn't support the car getting weight, and people were trotting out this garbage sportscar article as "evidence."
Click to expand...

You cannot use one race to determine weight! Even if they sweep the podium!

You have to use results and WHAT WE KNOW about the cars making more power. There are 3 half built cars kicking ass all over the country. What if those 3 cars don't make the ARRC, but continue kicking ass all over. What do you do? Nothing??

What you are SUPPOSED to do is what the ITAC did. The CRB is a bunch of fucking idiots. I just wish there was a way to vote them out. Alas, they will just keep on recommending themselves to their own positions.....

edit: In national classes with a one race runoff to win the national championship, you CAN use one race. Cause in the end, thats the only race that matters. You cannot use the ARRC, or the ITFest in IT.

-Tom
 
Last edited:
I don't entirely disagree with this. I have believed for a while that we needed a "cooling off" in IT to let the changes settle. We saw that from some of membership in the dual vestiges poll - Bowie, Tristan, and others -- and it makes sense.

One of the frustrations I had with the rest of the ITAC (great folks all) was the perception I had that the process was "never ending" -- that we were going to continue to add formulas and adders until we believed the proces was "perfect." We needed to stop at some point.

But I also agree with Jake that stopping point should not have been (and here is where I respectfully disagree with the CRB) a direction that cuts us off from using the process to correct weights on cars that were set via the old curb weight formula, or are just otherwise wrong.

Andy summed the philosophical distinction up best. IT has a culture of trying to objectively set a weight on paper regardless of on track results, the rest of the club via the CRB has worked very had to balance things via on track results.

It's a weird dichotomy and a gulf that is wider than I ever realized.

tnord said:
I think it's kinda like when our CFO created this committee that had to approve any spend over dollars. the intent isn't to END spending, but just put the brakes on for a bit and see what we've got before everything goes spiraling out of control.
Click to expand...
 
tnord said:
fail.

the CRB (and many members) want stability. we will have that now until significant and meaningful evidence is shown to prove otherwise.....same as before. the difference now is that if miatas sweep the podium under normal conditions and a strong field at the IT Fest and ARRC, the ability is there to add weight. and yes, if Cefalo, Yergler, and KVS show up to the ARRC, take the podium, and turn consistent laps significantly faster than the field....add weight. i'm fine with that. there's no discussion about adding weight "just because."
Click to expand...

You self-serving ..... There wasn't discussion about adding weight "just because." The position taken by the CRB, the one that you love since it serves your own interests and to hell with what it does to IT, however, is exactly that - add weight over the correct process weight "just because."

They (the CRB) have done it to one car already - the Audi. They've added weight over the correct weight "just because" someone got a good qualifying time by bump drafting.

Your ox is gored because you tried to pick an overdog car to build and the powers that be were taking a look at it. Congratulations! You've gotten you way and the cost is pissing off the majority of those involved in the category.
 
:lol:

you really think I'M solely responsible for all of this?

PS - actually my thought process was "i have a bunch of miata stuff already, i don't think this car can win the ARRC, but it will do fine locally, so i'll build one anyway." :shrug:
 
Last edited:
tnord said:
:lol:

you really think I'M solely responsible for all of this?

PS - actually my thought process was "i have a bunch of miata stuff already, i don't think this car can win the ARRC, but it will do fine locally, so i'll build one anyway." :shrug:
Click to expand...
No, but you are part of the problem being so self serving. Musical chairs is over and you have a seat--good for you.
 
how funny.

if you pay attention....i'm actually HELPING you guys keep the process. but it's much easier for you guys to just think i don't give two shits about anyone or anything but myself, so you probably missed that.

y'all can grab some knee-pads and lick my balls.
 
jjjanos said:
They (the CRB) have done it to one car already - the Audi. They've added weight over the correct weight "just because" someone got a good qualifying time by bump drafting.
Click to expand...
When?

They did not take weight off, but I was unaware that they added any weight.

We don't know the inputs to the process the first time around, and that's a shame, but it was impossible to add weight to the specification based on an event that had not yet taken place. The process inputs change the outputs, and someone may have 'known' something then that caused different inputs to be used than the ones used last time around to recommend an eighth ton reduction.
 
Travis.

I dont' peronsally know you and being a new ITB driver probably will never race you. However can you an good concience say that it is best for the IT community or even to get emotional and say "fair" that a whole slew of cars just got screwed by the CRB and a few cars win out by there decision?

I know it may seem a bit selfish on both of our parts.. me being on the side that has been waiting for a weight correction that was told was in the works, and now not getting it, and you choose the correct car at the end of the game.
 
quadzjr said:
Travis.

I dont' peronsally know you and being a new ITB driver probably will never race you. However can you an good concience say that it is best for the IT community or even to get emotional and say "fair" that a whole slew of cars just got screwed by the CRB and a few cars win out by there decision?
Click to expand...

first, define "screwed."

it's not like the CRB is completely trashing everything that was done in the past 5 years. they're not saying, "hey, HondAcura products seem to win every IT Fest and ARRC for quite a while now in ITA, so lets add 150lbs to them." they're just saying "lets hold off on this whole re-classification/comp adjustment to the rest of the cars not done in the GR v1." they're nervous because the ITAC refuses to consider any output other than exacty what the formula (based on many assumptions) spits out.

are there a couple cars out there that were about to justifiably lose weight? i dunno, i'm not on the ITAC so i have no idea what was on the table. if the ITA 318 was at 2700lbs before and it really should be at 2500? then yeah, that sucks for those couple guys with those cars....for now. but they decided to build those cars at that weight in the first place, so......:shrug:

I know it may seem a bit selfish on both of our parts.. me being on the side that has been waiting for a weight correction that was told was in the works, and now not getting it, and you choose the correct car at the end of the game.
Click to expand...

who says i chose the correct car? my car doesn't suck, but just because some miata beat the great tom hoppe and greg amy doesn't make it an overdog.
 
Theoretically, weight was "added" to the Audi.

The old Audi weight appears to have been set via the curb weight formula, and not related in anyway to the process. The Audi is quite heavy vis a vis any normal range of IT multipliers (25-35%) when using the process.

shwah said:
When?

They did not take weight off, but I was unaware that they added any weight.

We don't know the inputs to the process the first time around, and that's a shame, but it was impossible to add weight to the specification based on an event that had not yet taken place. The process inputs change the outputs, and someone may have 'known' something then that caused different inputs to be used than the ones used last time around to recommend an eighth ton reduction.
Click to expand...
 
tnord said:
first, define "screwed."

are there a couple cars out there that were about to justifiably lose weight? i dunno, i'm not on the ITAC so i have no idea what was on the table. if the ITA 318 was at 2700lbs before and it really should be at 2500? then yeah, that sucks for those couple guys with those cars....for now. but they decided to build those cars at that weight in the first place, so......:shrug:
Click to expand...

Pretty much exactly what I am saying.. Except for the MK1 MR2, and I decided to build it with information I got from ITAC that it was classed wrong and they were fixing it. So I assumed that the CRB wouldn't argue with the ITAC over a stupid mathmatical error. "assume" A$$ of U and ME??

tnord said:
who says i chose the correct car? my car doesn't suck, but just because some miata beat the great tom hoppe and greg amy doesn't make it an overdog.
Click to expand...

You have to admit it is one of the top cars to have.. I personally don't say it is any better than the integra (see my response to tom's comment) But it is one of the cars to have the other being the CRX.
 
Last edited:
tnord said:
they're just saying "lets hold off on this whole re-classification/comp adjustment to the rest of the cars not done in the GR v1." they're nervous because the ITAC refuses to consider any output other than exacty what the formula (based on many assumptions) spits out.
Click to expand...

Hold on. You're stating a bunch of stuff as 'facts', yet they are not.
First the CRB didn't say "hold off". That suggests a delay. They said stop. That means stop. Don't go. Ever. So, that seems clear.

Further, the ITAC DOES consider other outputs than what the Process spits out. If we didn't, rotaries would rule. I would LOVE to have my car judged by the same 25% yardstick. (It might help my 103 ft lb tq measurement, and the live axle that I get no break for). I'd weigh 200 pounds less. (If I could find it!) And the S2000 would weigh 275 pounds more than it does now..... Then there are other examples where data was entered that overrode the base assumptions.

[/quote]
 
>> ...the ITAC refuses to consider any output other than exacty what the formula (based on many assumptions) spits out.

Wrong. At least until last week - and over the past 18 months or so - I can say from first-hand experience that the ITAC would GLADLY consider any and all evidence supporting decisions outside of the base "formula."

Saying over and over that the process and practices used during that time were a "formula" to which the ITAC members were all slaves does NOT make it accurate. You choose to be wrong on that point, and trot it out to serve your agenda without so much as an ounce of critical thinking applied to the question.

I'm figuring at this point, that your CRB Deep Throat is Mr. Drago, since he suffers from the same misconception.

K
 
really kirk? so you're saying you guys would be willing to class cars at a number other than what is output by the formula? that's news to me, and i bet many others.
 
tnord said:
really kirk? so you're saying you guys would be willing to class cars at a number other than what is output by the formula? that's news to me, and i bet many others.
Click to expand...

How, on Gods green earth, could it be news?? (Assuming that this isn't semantics) If you mean "outside the formula" (blea, it's a process), to mean stuff just tossed on for the sake of feel good, then no, we don't do that. But, when the process spits out weights that are obviously wrong, as in the S2000, it isn't used. Research is done to determine what is reasonable, or real. Each case is different. In the S2000's case we modified the multiplier. In other cases, we use the data we have, and sidestep the presumptive first step. It's a procedure that uses inputs (which are open for debate) and repeatable blocks.

We've been over this a gazillion times and stated it a billion ways. I think that it's the structured method of imputing the data that trips up the CRB, as they feel it lacks 'wiggleroom".
 
Travis, your missing that no cars can be corrected if they are underweight, only if they are overdogs. Your also fool hardy because you assume that Mr Drago won't throw weight on a miata because it might be bad for crossover business. You may also realize that even if an arrc sweep occurs no weight may be added if they sandbag and don't turn fast laps. I mean if they start on row 2-3 and pass on the first lap or two before times drop then run consistently but not faster than other cars nothing is likely to happen. It doesn't change that things are still broken, and you'll be crying when someone finds a better car to do it with than the miata.

edit: The fact that two crb members are ITB guys that would have been making another car competitive in their backyard is highly suspect at best to me. About as transparent as a brick wall. And comments from mr Drago that had been brought up previously aren't much better. Personally, this makes me glad to see Gorrian run away from him in a "spec" car at the runoffs.. maybe sm will start giving drivers lead bricks. Wouldn't be much different than the "wiggle" room the ITAC guys are claiming CRB wanted for IT
 
Last edited:
frnkhous said:
Travis, your missing that no cars can be corrected if they are underweight, only if they are overdogs.
Click to expand...

wrong. it works both ways.

if someone proves to have built a 100% effort (writes a big check to sunbelt, rebello, etc) and the dyno data doesn't show the car to make squat for power, they can adjust the weights down just the same as they can adjust them up.

*this is assuming that the current "freeze" on weights thaws after some time for everyone to get on the same page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top