...and the point at which the basics of the process get posted, it becomes fodder for picking of nits re: everything from first assumptions to "you need to add 5 pounds to the FWD factor, because it's not close enough!" Bah. Total waste of time.
I'm a formula guy from WAY back but recognize that we have no need for the kind of big-picture validity (generalizability) that scientists strive for with their data collection. What we need - and I think we pretty much have - is internal validity (we are pretty sure that we're measuring what we think we are and that it matters, given the application of the data) and consistency, both in terms of test-retest and inter-rater repeatability.
If five ITAC'ers can independently take the same inputs and arrive within 20# of each other's outcome (weight spec), then that's pretty damned good. If you can ask Andy to spec the same car twice, blindfolded, with a year between attempts, and he gets the same level of consistency, that's pretty damned good.
In terms of the "old ITAC," there really isn't such a thing. The committee as we currently understand it was constituted what, seven years ago...? It's first and most lasting major effort was to develop what has turned into the current process. The second major milestone was the Great Realignment (2 years ago? I'm getting senile), that was the FIRST attempt in the 25 year history of the category to put a majority of the cars on the same laying field. Prior to that, we had the approach that Bill describes but you'll notice that it's JUST about setting the weight. You can't tweak performance by examining only one factor or dimension, so that was simply apples to today's oranges.
Prior to THAT, we had all manner of processes for classifying and spec'ing weights, depending on which individual or group did it. If you don't remember the period when the CoB wouldn't even seriously entertain requests about IT car classification, or would tell you with a straight face that a Neon or Civic Si was an ITS car, then maybe you don't appreciate where we are.
It ain't perfect but it's a HELL of a lot better than it was.
And I don't think that Andy believes that we should count on this forum as an official conduit for information about the category. I know he doesn't, as he's recently said so much. I'm confident that the ITAC would respond informally to ANY inquiry that came to them, as long as it included the necessary data to run the process. The only complaint I might have is that it seems to be impossible to locate contact information for the ad hoc committees on the new SCCA web site, to help allow that to happen.
K [/b]
