Class restructure proposal

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
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]/b] dog crap.

BTW, still haven't heard anything about what's going to happen w/ the 100# ballast limit.
Click to expand...


The restrictor plate piece is a small piece that was added by the CRB, after the ITAC submitted thier wording. I think it can be done with weight, and if it can't, there is a classing issue to deal with. Other than the mention of RP's, there is NOTHING to lead anyone to believe Prod-style adjustments are going to happen - frankly, we have been howling that this is exactly what PCA's ARE NOT.

I hate to say this Bill, but if that info wasn't in there about the 2nd / 3rd year, etc, I'm willing to bet you would have been the FIRST one to post that the rule was written too openly, giving the CRB way to much 'power' to be used at their discretion, with political motives. I truly believe you wouldn't have been happy either way. Sorry, but that is my perception.

The rule is written for both new classifications and old. Frankly, it is there to fix problems with the new, and have a mechanism to make changes to the old. What do you currently consider the E36 BMW to be - new or old?

The CRB wanted a new name, and they got it. Who cares?

We have asked the CRB to look at the ballest rule in conjunction with PCA's - and PCA's won't officially go before the BoD until August, so what's your beef there?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
FLATOUT Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Hey Jake, I have a question for you. Why did you pick the car you did for the ITA->ITB move? The 2nd gen. CRX Si would have the 8th or 9th lowest lp/hp number out of the entire ITB class.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
When I first started posting about weight changes in IT, the reactions were, "Oh no, we don't do that...this is IT!".... or....Well, that sounds scary, look at Prod".... or..."How can we control that? Too much chance for back room politics...we need a formula".

So, when I drafted my proposal to the boards, I put in limiting factors, both in weight amounts and in time limits, all to allay fears that the changes weren't going to become Prod style adjustments. My proposal was all about control, transparency and limits, and was intended to control the overdogs, because thats where I felt that 75% of ITs classing problems were.

Many people were against the idea at the start, but the "limtied concept" gained followers. Bill was against it, (huge concerns about the procedure and the lack of stability) but had some positive comments regarding the suggested controls as we progressed, and Geo went from totally against the idea to being a supporter when the specifics were fleshed out.

I think that your point, Andy, is very accurate about Bill objecting more to no limits that to the current proposal, if his past comments (described above) are any indication.

But I think he wasn't commenting on the CRBs name change, but the calling the concept PCAs, instead of the Prod usage of "Comp adjustments"....

He's right in a way, as the changes, while more limited, will be largely a reaction to a cars on track performance, just as it is in Prod. Hopefully we'll take the same idea and make it fly, and all the Prod guys will be jealous!
wink.gif


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by lateapex911:
But I think he wasn't commenting on the CRBs name change, but the calling the concept PCAs, instead of the Prod usage of "Comp adjustments"....
Click to expand...

Yup, that I knew. I still fail to see why anyone would complain about a name change - and it actually isn't one since CA's was never a term associated with IT. PCA's is a new concept to the class and is different in scope to CA's, so why NOT the new name?

It's just complaining for complainings sake. Let's focus on making PCA's work.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Bill, take another look at my spreadsheet that lists all IT vehicles sorted in order of the (spec wt)/(stock hp). In yellow, you'll see my "lines in the sand". ITA cars that wound up below Honda Civic Si, I put in the ITA->ITB list. There wasn't a magic formual of where I put that line - but if you think it belongs higher or lower, I'd love to hear your opinion. Maybe the right place is the ITB Mercury Capri at a nice round ratio of "20". I don't mean this to be hard and fast, but I do think this method does let many of the cars that should change classes float to the top. I also don't think that we can go through classes and adjust weight so everything is perfect. I just think we can put more cars in the right classes.
 
Andy,

You've obviously made up your mind that it's complaining just for the sake of complaining. So, that's the way you're going to see it. And, while there's no way to prove it, you're wrong about what I would have said. I've supported the use of a formula w/ the ability to adjust the weight post-classification, from the beginning. I believe I was one of the first to talk about a class-specific power/weight multiplier (Kirk's term "Miller Ratio"). Why would I be against that being implenented? Seems like you're malaigning me just for the sake of malaigning me.

As far as the whole 'new term' goes, it does provide a convenient way to keep the 'no guarantee' clause, yet be able to adjust cars. Like I said, no new term needed, just change the IT PP&I as I suggested above.

Jake,

I don't know what the right number is. Should it be the median value for the class? The 2nd gen. CRX Si just seemed to be a bit high in the ITA 'pecking order'. I did copy the data and sort it by class and then by lb/hp. While it doesn't tell the whole story, it sure does match w/ the trend of which cars are at the front. I think one of the things it does say, is that there are a lot of cars that need to be looked at for reclassification/weight adjustment.

Maybe the 1st gen. CRX Si is a better place to start. Or maybe one of the top ITB cars

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Bill, if we draw the line at the CRX Si, you then include these ITA cars in the ITA->ITB list. IMHO, I wouldn't move the Prelude-S, BMW 318ti, and Civic Si. But that's just one man's opinion. As I said before, we do this just as a guideline.


130 / 2580 ChevroletCosworthVega TwinCam (75-76)
135 / 2680 HondaPrelude-S(1992)
135 / 2680 Toyota Celica GTS (86-88)
113 / 2250 Nissan Pulsar NX (87-91)
138 / 2750 BMW 318ti
125 / 2510 MazdaProtege LX(90-93)
119 / 2390 MercuryCapri I V-6(72-74)
108 / 2175 HondaCivic Si(89-91)
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

You've obviously made up your mind that it's complaining just for the sake of complaining. So, that's the way you're going to see it. And, while there's no way to prove it, you're wrong about what I would have said. I've supported the use of a formula w/ the ability to adjust the weight post-classification, from the beginning. I believe I was one of the first to talk about a class-specific power/weight multiplier (Kirk's term "Miller Ratio"). Why would I be against that being implenented? Seems like you're malaigning me just for the sake of malaigning me.

As far as the whole 'new term' goes, it does provide a convenient way to keep the 'no guarantee' clause, yet be able to adjust cars. Like I said, no new term needed, just change the IT PP&I as I suggested above.
Click to expand...

Well then, I am wrong about your position if you say so. Your historical position comes off as 'WE MUST HAVE A FORMULA - AND IT MUST BE PUBLISHED'. I don't recall you ever supporting PCA's in any way - and I've looked. Multupliers or the 'Miller Ratio' is again, a formula-based system. Trying to find where you said post classification changes were ok...and I can't.

Do you know why it is a convienent way to keep the NG clause? Because we want the NG clause to stay. That was a stipulation ALL ALONG. I have debated with others before that selective use of PCA's to adjust older cars is the smart thing to do. Adjusting older, rare and undesireable cars is wasted effort and can cause many problems.

I apologize to you if I have your position wrong but your history and stances on this board have created the perception - accurate or not.

AB


------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
A couple of thoughts from someone who's done a lot of thinking down this line...?

First, remember that the current spec weights were defined by different people, at different times, for different reasons. They may or may not have anything to do with what the car or should actually weigh. For example, if the original spec weight was set artificially high as a handicapping exercise, use of that weight to determine reclassification is a little confusing. Try starting with the OE weight, considering how much a car can actually be lightened under IT rules.

Second, I'd respectfully suggest that any time the conversation shifts from the substance of the topic to what someone did or didn't say in the past, it might be that it isn't furthering any cause - pro or con.

FWIW.

K
 
Originally posted by ITSRX7:

Because we want the NG clause to stay. That was a stipulation ALL ALONG. I have debated with others before that selective use of PCA's to adjust older cars is the smart thing to do. Adjusting older, rare and undesireable cars is wasted effort and can cause many problems.
Click to expand...

I just do not see the logic of having a NG clause and be talking about PCA's, on one hand you say no guarantee and on the other you say you will, that is what PCA's are all about make you competive, right?

Another thing that worries me is this attitude, "Adjusting older, rare and undesireable cars is wasted effort..." So every member will not have the rules applied to him in every way when it comes to PCA's, Who decides if the car is too old or rare? If you are going to do PCA's it would seem that you would want to take care of all the members but that is not what I read here.
 
Originally posted by cherokee:
I just do not see the logic of having a NG clause and be talking about PCA's, on one hand you say no guarantee and on the other you say you will, that is what PCA's are all about make you competive, right?
Click to expand...

NO... NO ONE can "make you competitive"... The NG clause is redundant really, because WHO can "guarantee" your competitiveness in the first place...

PCAs are NOT designed to "make you competitive"... They are designed to allow the CRB to correct for incorrect estimations of performance potential of a car. That has little to do with "competitiveness", and everything to do with making some kind of attempt to match the mechanical properties of vehicles in the same class as much as possible without the use of a Formula 1 style computer system...

The end result, obviously, is that the CARS in each class should have some reasonable amount of parity between them. Making them "competitive" is then up to you guys.

Originally posted by Knestis:
Try starting with the OE weight, considering how much a car can actually be lightened under IT rules.
Click to expand...

Or, how about starting with estimating power potential, then using the weight that you estimate for that power to help determine whether or not a class makes sense for the car? Calculate it for two potential classes and pick the one that makes the most sense... (meaning, which class the car can go into and actually achieve it's recommended weight.)


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited June 22, 2004).]
 
Perhaps I should have said make the car competive. You could have the best driver in the world in a mis-classed car and HE will still not do very well.

I thaught that the NG clause was that no car was guaranteed to be competive, PCA's will change all that, but I guess if you keep the NG clause you can say sorry buddy you car is not popular or too old or whatever...there is no guarantee, but hay if you where driving a chosen car we could help you out.

"The end result, obviously, is that the CARS in each class should have some reasonable amount of parity between them."
If they where put in the correct class in the first place this would not be a problem.
As for the older cars in classes that are getting new blood...move them down slow them down, adjust the car when it has to move classes.

I am just not sold on the PCA argument, more so with comments that would exclude some cars from getting an adjustment, but keep talking you might change my mind.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited June 22, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by cherokee:


Another thing that worries me is this attitude, "Adjusting older, rare and undesireable cars is wasted effort..." So every member will not have the rules applied to him in every way when it comes to PCA's, Who decides if the car is too old or rare? If you are going to do PCA's it would seem that you would want to take care of all the members but that is not what I read here.

Click to expand...

Cherokee,

First, let me say this: we are not far enough along in the PCA process so that I know the OFFICIAL stance of the entire ITAC on this...I will lay out *my* position. This is a topic that I knew would have to get hashed out.

There are cars out there right now that are too rare and/or too old to be placed at the 'top' of a race class. When I say this, I mean that everyone needs to have the same kind of chance to build one, and race one competitively, safely - AND legally. I guess I see most of the potential for my issue is in ITB/ITC. Cars similar to the Dastun 510 come to mind. Parts are ultra-rare, some critical ones not even manufactured anymore, buildable (read: mostly rust-free) donor cars are non-existant in 95% of the country...

Is this the type of car you want to have as 'the car' in a class (actual or perceived)? Please don't harp on the 510, use the symptoms as the issue in any debate. We WANT to take care of all the members but would you say it makes sense to try and get some cars closer to the brass ring than others - in the interest of common sense? I know this is a hard question and my position may make some uneasy but I think it makes sense in the overall scheme.

I am open for all discussion.

AB


------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by cherokee:
I thaught that the NG clause was that no car was guaranteed to be competive, PCA's will change all that, but I guess if you keep the NG clause you can say sorry buddy you car is not popular or too old or whatever...there is no guarantee, but hay if you where driving a chosen car we could help you out.

"The end result, obviously, is that the CARS in each class should have some reasonable amount of parity between them."
If they where put in the correct class in the first place this would not be a problem.
Click to expand...

We have always said that PCA's were to fix problems and the NG clause would never come out. It isn't meant to be political, it's just there to keep us from getting trapped in the 'production world' we all so want to avoid.

Cars can be in the correct class and have no chance of winning given equal prep and equal drivers. The E36 BMW 325 and the 944 8V comes to mind. *I* think (Geo will disagree but...) that the 944 8V car is not an ITA car but it certainly isn't the class of ITS right now. Without PCA's, we can't shrink that gap.

Picture a wheel with a 70-series tire on it. The rubber sidewall area represents the mass of cars that COULD be closer in cmpetitive potential to the 'wheel'. The wheel is the core of top cars in each class. PCA's goal would be to shrink the tire from say, a 70 series, to a 30 series - or something like that. To bring cars closer to the goal - but not in a micro, Production type of way...

Am I making ANY sense???
smile.gif


AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Andy, I understand your position but all cars should be treated the same across the board. I also understand that the process is just starting out. I just worry about opening Pandoras Box. At first we it was only weight, then we heard of air restrictors, what next? and there will be a next. All of these changes will be little one time for one little thing and it will get all out of hand before you know it....they always said that I was a glass is half empty kind of guy.

I just wanted to add with you BMW and Porsche example everyone seems to agree that the BMW is too fast, it goes back to my comment that it was not classified correctly in the first place. Use the PCA's to slow down the newly placed (less then 5 yrs) overdogs and not mess with the class vetran cars.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited June 22, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Or, how about starting with estimating power potential, then using the weight that you estimate for that power to help determine whether or not a class makes sense for the car? ...
Click to expand...

That's kind of what I did with all of my figures. If a car needed an unreasonable amount of ballast or had to be way below the OE curb weight, it got moved.

That's why that online weight calculator that I created allowed you to pick what class your car would be figured for. The same car in ITC would not weigh what it was spec'd at in ITB - hypothetically speaking, of course. When we were playing with it, several people indicated that they would rather be in a lower class at a more realistic weight...

K

EDIT - http://www.it2.evaluand.com/wtform.php3

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited June 22, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by cherokee:
Use the PCA's to slow down the newly placed (less then 5 yrs) overdogs and not mess with the class vetran cars.
Click to expand...

Does anyone else see the converging of thought going on here???
wink.gif


Cherokee et. al.,

That's EXACTLY why the language says "on rare occasion", when referring to anything other than the newly classified stuff... the main purpose of this exercise is to give the CRB the tools to get these initial classification correct. The rest of the stuff CAN be adjusted, but only after a careful review of all pertinenet information.

What you have seen thus far is an initial influx of adjustments to existing cars, and you may see some more of this, but as time progresses, IT will still be IT, and change isn't one of the things IT is known for.

If we can get some of this "realignement" done, and done correctly, PCAs should only need to be employed on those occasions where we simply miss the mark on initial classifications, or as classficiations mature to the point where we have a REALLY good measure of the performance of the car.



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Does anyone else see the converging of thought going on here???
wink.gif


Cherokee et. al.,

That's EXACTLY why the language says "on rare occasion", when referring to anything other than the newly classified stuff... the main purpose of this exercise is to give the CRB the tools to get these initial classification correct. The rest of the stuff CAN be adjusted, but only after a careful review of all pertinenet information.

What you have seen thus far is an initial influx of adjustments to existing cars, and you may see some more of this, but as time progresses, IT will still be IT, and change isn't one of the things IT is known for.

If we can get some of this "realignement" done, and done correctly, PCAs should only need to be employed on those occasions where we simply miss the mark on initial classifications, or as classficiations mature to the point where we have a REALLY good measure of the performance of the car.
Click to expand...

I think Darin hit the nail square on the head here.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
The August fastrack looks great! I can check off several from the list now. I really like the Porsche moves. I have a but that's all set to build a 1.7L ITC! 914. However (just to rub it in):

[scca]5. Reclassify the Toyota MR2. (Scott) The Toyota MR2 is correctly classified and does not share the same platform as the Toyota FX16.[/scca]

Hmmm, so for any car now to move a class it needs to share a platform with the FX16? :P
 
Andy,

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how PCA's can be consistent w/ the NG clause. Essentially what you're saying is that the NG clause still applies, but instead of just providing a place to race, it now says that maybe we'll adjust your car if it's too slow or too fast.

Darin,

Please explain to me how Prod-style comp. adjustments make cars competitive.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top