Class restructure proposal
- Thread starter Jake
- Start date
Dave, to answer your question, I don't think that ITD is needed if we do this right. I don't believe that the ITB cars on the list are necessarily going to be front runners in ITC. In fact, most probably couldn't keep up with ITC Fiesta's, Rabbits, CRX's, or Scirrocos. If you have reason to believe that they would, that should be analysed and then we could adding weight to them as they drop into ITC.
As for the currently outclassed ITC cars, I personally haven't seen any of them run or heard any interest in anyone building them. I think we're talking about stuff like an ITC Beetle, Yugo, Starlet, LeCar. Also, ITC probably runs the smallest numbers on most tracks, so it probably wouldn't make much sence in splitting them into ITC and ITD.
As for the currently outclassed ITC cars, I personally haven't seen any of them run or heard any interest in anyone building them. I think we're talking about stuff like an ITC Beetle, Yugo, Starlet, LeCar. Also, ITC probably runs the smallest numbers on most tracks, so it probably wouldn't make much sence in splitting them into ITC and ITD.
My comment was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
It would be that much easier for me to choose a car to build. Not because that method would be more accurate.
Even if a formula was developed which was super accurate and we were able to equalize ALL cars within a class, not all those cars will be able to legally make that weight. So there is no need to perfect a formula.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
So..... the needs (or restrictions) of one or two outweigh the needs of the many?
There ARE a ton of variables, and even more unknowns, but it is still better to try...
And any formula needs a back up, and thats where PCAs come in to fine tune.
But there is no doubt, if the powers that be are willing, that IT needs restructuring. For whatever reason, certain classes have morphed (speedwise) into the class above, and there are a lot of inequities. A big picture rethink is a great way to go.
Barring that, if the CRB, et al, finds it too much to attempt, then the same concept on a smaller scale, hitting the big problems is still a good idea.
The Impulse above is a great example. The CRB might, for example, say, "Who cares? Nobody runs or is going to run that car..not worth the work to move it and adjust the weight." Or, on the other hand, hey, nobody runs the car anyway, why not move it take the best shot (a basic formula) and not worry? IF it is suddenly found to be THE hot car for the class, use PCAs to correct the weight...
A system that begins as a formula is fine, but it needs to allow for other inputs to get the best result, and a form of post classification adjustment.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Well said Jake!!
I for one, say we should move cars like the Impulse. Perhaps the reason nobody drives it is because it is so poorly classed. This rings true even better for many other examples. I've never seen a Neon run in ITS, but I bet there will be some soon running in ITA. I think many people have cars that they would love to take racing (some ex SS cars, some solo II cars) but don't bother due to the classifications.
[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 18, 2004).]
I for one, say we should move cars like the Impulse. Perhaps the reason nobody drives it is because it is so poorly classed. This rings true even better for many other examples. I've never seen a Neon run in ITS, but I bet there will be some soon running in ITA. I think many people have cars that they would love to take racing (some ex SS cars, some solo II cars) but don't bother due to the classifications.
[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 18, 2004).]
gran racing
Super Moderator
One of my concerns with what has been said is how a car may be adjusted due to its performance / how well it has done in the events it is raced. Even though some believe that this is a hard number, it simply is not true. There are several cars that have many people driving them, but are not fully prepared or the drivers themselves are not the fastest ones out there. I can think of a few off the top of my head pretty easily.
Unfortunately there has to be some estimates of the cars capabilities with equal drivers and preparation. The formula idea is a great beginning for several reasons. It gives a starting point for the car. It also takes some of the subjectivity away and hopefully some of the potential politics.
[This message has been edited by gran racing (edited June 18, 2004).]
Unfortunately there has to be some estimates of the cars capabilities with equal drivers and preparation. The formula idea is a great beginning for several reasons. It gives a starting point for the car. It also takes some of the subjectivity away and hopefully some of the potential politics.
[This message has been edited by gran racing (edited June 18, 2004).]
Bill Miller
New member
These are some of the wisest words I've seen on this board in a long time. Not to mention that it's pretty much what I've been saying for about three years now.
Jake, next time we're "under the bridge", I'm gonna buy you a beer!!!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Banzai240
New member
I'm starting to think you have split-personalities Bill... Andy, Geo, and I have been saying this the entire time we've been on the ITAC and you've been arguing with us for the whole time!
I hope this means you are getting happier with what we are doing, because pretty much every one of these classifications/reclassifications that we have "recommended" to this point has been done precisely this way, which is why you see the "pending PCAs" clause at the tail end of Fastrack announcements like the Neon, Sentra, etc... (though, those were put in there by the CRB...)
Again, thanks Jake for putting this list together... I can assure you it's going to be put to good use!
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Yeah - all Production cars. My first reaction was one of, "if we don't know what parts they were supposed to start with, then..." Oh, never mind. You make a pretty good point that the Prod category is in such a muddled state at this point, it makes NO difference what the OE specs are. Touche.
K
Bill Miller
New member
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'm starting to think you have split-personalities Bill... Andy, Geo, and I have been saying this the entire time we've been on the ITAC and you've been arguing with us for the whole time!
I hope this means you are getting happier with what we are doing, because pretty much every one of these classifications/reclassifications that we have "recommended" to this point has been done precisely this way, which is why you see the "pending PCAs" clause at the tail end of Fastrack announcements like the Neon, Sentra, etc... (though, those were put in there by the CRB...)
Again, thanks Jake for putting this list together... I can assure you it's going to be put to good use!
Darin,
I'm not going to go round-and-round w/ you again on this. Until recently, I've never seen you support or advocate using any kind of published formula. Or maybe that's it, you want to use a formula, you just don't want anyone to know what it is and you don't want them to know you're using a formula.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Bill,
Jake never said 'published' in his post. I haven't until now seen you support PCA's...maybe I missed it too. It's possible.
I have gone on record as stating why I don't think a published formula is a good idea, please let's not go over that. We will agree to disagree - again.
We NEED PCA's if any changes are to be made. Errors need a method of correction. That is, and has been, the whole reason for PCA's.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Jake never said 'published' in his post. I haven't until now seen you support PCA's...maybe I missed it too. It's possible.
I have gone on record as stating why I don't think a published formula is a good idea, please let's not go over that. We will agree to disagree - again.
We NEED PCA's if any changes are to be made. Errors need a method of correction. That is, and has been, the whole reason for PCA's.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Further, there really isn't a forumla.
Looking at power to weight puts you in the ballpark and, we think, the correct class. But beyond that it still requires subjective input. There is no formula that says plus this, minus that, etc. We have to look at the whole package and make a guess regarding its performance potential.
Is our crystal ball the clearest? <shrug> We think it's better than it was in the past.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Looking at power to weight puts you in the ballpark and, we think, the correct class. But beyond that it still requires subjective input. There is no formula that says plus this, minus that, etc. We have to look at the whole package and make a guess regarding its performance potential.
Is our crystal ball the clearest? <shrug> We think it's better than it was in the past.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Bill Miller
New member
Andy,
I still don't support PCA's, so there's nothing new there. But, you're right, we'll agree to disagree.
George,
That's just plain scary. Do I understand you correctly, in that you're not going to try and quantify the performance contribution a certain technology makes (e.g. double wishbone suspension, VVT, etc.)?
To me, guessing at performance potential is not much better than the dartboard apporach.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
I still don't support PCA's, so there's nothing new there. But, you're right, we'll agree to disagree.
George,
That's just plain scary. Do I understand you correctly, in that you're not going to try and quantify the performance contribution a certain technology makes (e.g. double wishbone suspension, VVT, etc.)?
To me, guessing at performance potential is not much better than the dartboard apporach.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Bill,
When the Prophet Gulik writes:
And you write:
Why do you say you don't support PCA's? He mentions PCA's SPECIFICALLY, then talks about post-classification adjustments (PCA's) to keep things in check...so you agree with about 33% of his post, when he says a formula would be ok? Help me understand.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
When the Prophet Gulik writes:
And you write:
Why do you say you don't support PCA's? He mentions PCA's SPECIFICALLY, then talks about post-classification adjustments (PCA's) to keep things in check...so you agree with about 33% of his post, when he says a formula would be ok? Help me understand.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Banzai240:
HEY... I like that better!! Post Classification Adjustments... PCAs I think that may be better than "Performance Compensation Adjustments"!
I move to....
Hold on there, my friend...lets quote the guy who came up with it first, eh???
...and I didn't event mean to quote it like that!!!!!
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FLATOUT Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FLATOUT Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Bill Miller
New member
edit/ duplicate post
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 21, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited June 21, 2004).]
Bill Miller
New member
Andy,
What he said was to use PCA's to adjust weight. If you go back, you'll find that I've only ever advocated adjusting the weight of cars. I never advocated Prod-style comp. adjustments, or the use of intake restrictors (as the PCA proposal has in it).
The PCA proposal language is largely devoted to new car classifications. Very little applies to currently classified cars. I don't support, nor do I see the need for all the rhetoric about 2nd year, 3rd year, etc. IMHO, the whole thing could have been streamlined by simply changing the ITCS PP&I to indicate that in addition to reclassification, a car's spec weight may be changed (up or down) after it has initially been classified. There's no need to add anything about changing the weight when a car is reclassified, because that's already in there.
To me, the fact that a whole other euphamism (sp?) for comp. adjustments had to be coined, is pretty funny. You know the old story, if it looks like dog crap, and smells like dog crap, there's a good chance that it is dog crap.
BTW, still haven't heard anything about what's going to happen w/ the 100# ballast limit.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
What he said was to use PCA's to adjust weight. If you go back, you'll find that I've only ever advocated adjusting the weight of cars. I never advocated Prod-style comp. adjustments, or the use of intake restrictors (as the PCA proposal has in it).
The PCA proposal language is largely devoted to new car classifications. Very little applies to currently classified cars. I don't support, nor do I see the need for all the rhetoric about 2nd year, 3rd year, etc. IMHO, the whole thing could have been streamlined by simply changing the ITCS PP&I to indicate that in addition to reclassification, a car's spec weight may be changed (up or down) after it has initially been classified. There's no need to add anything about changing the weight when a car is reclassified, because that's already in there.
To me, the fact that a whole other euphamism (sp?) for comp. adjustments had to be coined, is pretty funny. You know the old story, if it looks like dog crap, and smells like dog crap, there's a good chance that it is dog crap.
BTW, still haven't heard anything about what's going to happen w/ the 100# ballast limit.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608