Originally posted by ITSRX7:
When you class a car in ITS, and it is going to be one of the contenders, then you have to have a mechanism in place to bring the car into the intended performamce envelope if you underestimated its ability. Right now, we don't have that mechanism. When and if the (my edit): Borgward Special starts dominating ITS in competitive pockets across the country, someone needs to take a long hard look at why.
If the top 5 spots (at the ARRC) are Borward Specials, then some eyebrows will be raised.
AB
Andy makes a good point. The club has created a big problem, which is really the result of their success. That success is the creation and gestation of the IT category, which is arguably one of the most popular categories in SCCA, and could be the key to the successful future of the club. The problem is the stated "no guarantee of competitivness" clause, which is really quite annoying at this point.
I changed the references in Andy's post because while the discussion is currently about the E-36, it could be about any model car.
Car classifications and rules changes, when made, should be made across the board, not directly targeted toward a particular person or group that is legally working within the current rule structure and status quo of the class.
James, you said a mouthful there! A prime example of a rule change that WAS made across the board, but only benefits SOME cars in all IT classes is the ECU rule, which was applied to cars previously classified! Suddenly, the Shazamm 500 has another 15 HP! But other whole groups of cars
IN THE SAME CLASS don't benefit, and are marginalized!
So, they made an error. Fine. Problem is, there is NO mechanism to fix it! James, I've met Kip and he is no doubt a sharp guy, and from what I see, he is a very talented driver. And no doubt, you guys have done your homework. I remember in an earlier post, you stated that at your levels of prep you felt it was better to not run too many IT events. I disagree....the rules encourage homework...you did it, you should benefit.
But IF there has been a mistake, and whatever car the SCCA classes winds up dominating fields (once the participation numbers are apples to apples, or at least closer, and the results aren't just based on one event), what can be done?
That is the real world test and why final adjustments on racecars are done by drivers instead of computers - numbers are not the bottom line. Quantitative data is BS in this situation because there are way more factors than you are considering. A mathmatical formula will not account for all of them.
Right, but a well thought out formula can get it close. But, even in the most perfect world, it would be very tough for any formula to predict the performance of so many models on so many tracks. In our case, it's unlikely that the powers that be will ever create (or even adopt
)such a thing. Hopefully I'm wrong and they will get close. But even if they do, I can't see a world where "tweaking" isn't required.
As it stands now, and this is not limited to ITS, we might have to look at the original statements of competiveness and philosophy...our foundation...if we expect to right a listing house. The house is really not that bad...but the foundation has settled!
CA racers are starting to go to spec classes as a backlash against IT rules creep. I have been working on a Spec E30 class for BMW racers which should begin next year.
I respectfully disagree with you here James....partially.... you have a point that the prep level may be too much for some. But I think most of the guys that are looking at spec series' due to the fact that they have lost faith in the parity of the classes. Certain classes have seen dramatic lap record changes in the past few years due to the inclusion of "overdogs". Rather than selling the perfectly good, once competitive ride, and getting into this years darling, then hoping for the best, they'd rather just go with equal equipment and let the driving decide the issue.
That single fact is the best indicator that the masses want a reasonable shot at being competitive, and some attempt by the SCCA at creating equality is needed.
The bottom line? The board doesn't have IT very high on their "to do" list, and will always refer back to the original paragraph, written decades ago, responding to our letters with a "Not consistant with class philosophy" comment, if we are lucky enough to even get a response!
------------------
Jake Gulick
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 14, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 14, 2002).]
.
