dual classification

[RSTPerformance]

additional thoughts...

I could change my mind on how it should be done, but I do think it should be a more used option...

Raymond

 

[erlrich]

I really do like the idea of allowing cars to run in higher classes - the only caveot I could see is that they would need to be permitted to make use of class-specific allowances (e.g. ITB cars could run 7" wheels in ITA, ITS cars could run 8.5" wheels in ITR). Is there a potential downside to this?

 

[BlueStreak]

You left out a solution to my pet problem - I'm in a no expense spared STRIPPED to the bone car that has a weight req of 2080. As a 250lb driver, I can't get under 2148. I'd love to have a new practical (for me) weight target and just run some ballast and move from ITB to ITC.

To put it simply, create an optional spec weight that I can ballast up to and run in ITC instead of ITB.

I'm not whining, the process is working extremely well, and I will continue to troll around the back of ITB on those rare weekends when work and family permit.

I'm just suggesting that creating an option to allow people who want to ballast up and run a class slower does not seem like a tough option to provide to people.

 

[Knestis]

Ack.

Rather than asking people how they want to DO dual classification, how about a serious discussion to try to define what problem it is supposed to be solving?

Until/unless that is made blindingly clear, there's no way to tell if the policy is a success, someone is always going to be able to find fault in it, and it will be ripe for re-purposing resulting in unintended consequences and rules creep.

K

 

[keycom]

You left out a solution to my pet problem - I'm in a no expense spared STRIPPED to the bone car that has a weight req of 2080. As a 250lb driver, I can't get under 2148. I'd love to have a new practical (for me) weight target and just run some ballast and move from ITB to ITC.
[/b]

I just got started this year in an 84 GTI also. I am at about 2150 and I weigh 300 naked (try not to think too much about THAT)

So I would be down to 2100 if I was as slim as you! And that is with heavy Audi wheels, the evaporator still under the dash, and much underbody soundproofing left to grind off.

The GTI can make weight easily, so I need to find another excuse for hiding at the back of the pack!

 

[RSTPerformance]

Ack.

Rather than asking people how they want to DO dual classification, how about a serious discussion to try to define what problem it is supposed to be solving?

K
[/b]

For me it is a no-brainer... It is not solving a problem, but rather providing opportunities for growth in individual classes, SCCA as a whole, as well as opportunities for people to share expences in a reasonable way.

2 sides to this...

1. Poorer people such as myself and several other people in my region (I bold my because I know it isn't all about my region, but I don't know how it is elsewhere...) can't afford to go racing anymore.

Racing is getting expensive, and for many people it is just not feasable to build a car alone anymore. However it is or may be feasible for someone to build a car with someone else (Sharing expenses and risk). If you share a car with someone else then you both would need the opportunity to race it. Don't say this is a stupid idea, people run more of a risk renting a car every weekend than sharing the expence of a car with someone.

2. Richer people are already running cars in multiple classes for many reasons as well...

A. To make travel worthwhile. If I could afford 2 entry fees and get the track time I actually want (say 2hrs vs 1hr) then I would be willing to make the $500 investment to tow to the track and do race.
B. Testing...

That is the rich vs. poor quick snapshot in my head (5 minutes worth of thought)... However for me it is actually the bottom line... From a business angle or a membership angle people want more opportunities to race, the demand is thier and it would cost $0.00 (ZERO DOLLORS) for SCCA to meet the needs. I don't see how anyone can say that putting zero dollors into something with the potential of making $200 per person (average) isn't worth it... please tell me from a business side how it is not worth it???

sure you can enter two classes now, but lets face it, they are not realistic. I entered SPU last weekend, probably the slowest catch all class, and I was 18 seconds a lap behind the leader... lol

Raymond

 

[tnord]

You left out a solution to my pet problem - I'm in a no expense spared STRIPPED to the bone car that has a weight req of 2080. As a 250lb driver, I can't get under 2148. I'd love to have a new practical (for me) weight target
[/b]

no expense spared except for going on a diet. actually, that wouldn't even cost you money, it'd SAVE you money. basing minimum weights on anything but the average is absurd.

this is one of my pet peves, and no, i'm not exactly a light guy either at 6'3'' 200lbs in a 1.6 Miata.

 

[Knestis]

For me it is a no-brainer... It is not solving a problem, but rather providing opportunities for growth in individual classes, SCCA as a whole, as well as opportunities for people to share expences in a reasonable way. ...[/b]

I use the term "problem" in the broadest sense so don't let that hang you up.

Putting your explanation in a nutshell and turning it around so it's in the form of a "problem" (need? desire?), you are suggesting that...

Members want to be able to enter a given IT car in more than one race (for more than one driver, or the same driver in more than one class) in one weekend, but current IT classing limitations prevent them from doing so.

...or words to that effect?

That's a VERY different intention than has been discussed regarding...

** Solutions to the "tweener problem"

** Redressing injustices committed upon owners of cars moved from one class to another

Point being (as an example), I'd be totally OK with dual classification to address the tweener issue - where cars can reasonably be spec'd within the process in two classes - but NOT for other reasons.

You understand how it could be a real problem to mush all of these things together, right? There might be other solutions to the problem you are addressing (regional catch-all classes, re-jiggered groupings, double regionals) that don't fix others, and vice-versa, for example. A "solution" might be really good at solving one problem but fall short fixing another, making it necessary to go back to the drawing table. Etc.

K

 

[RSTPerformance]

K-

very well sumerized...

Option #1:
For me, I am "totally OK with dual classification to address the tweener issue - where cars can reasonably be spec'd within the process in two classes."

Option #2:
I am also open to the idea of allowing any cars to compete in a "higher" class at will, only because it does not require any work on SCCA's part other than to make the allowance, and because those cars should not have a competitive advantage given the process that classed them in the "lower" class.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Agreed, those are two completely different issues... for example:

example #1:
The Shelby would partialy work with option #2, however I am not sure that the driver would want to compete at ITB weights against ITA cars, thus that driver would probably prefer option # 1 should the car fit in both classes per the process.

Example # 2
The BMW ITR issue... certainly would not have been solved with either process above, expecially without the SIR (Crap I mentioned those darn 3 letters...).

Raymond "I still think that some dual Classing should be taken advantage of to meet members requests, possibly a combination of option 1 and option 2 above..." Blethen

PS: I hate refering to a "higher" class or "Lower" class as it seems demeaning... anyone have a better way to refer to it... we all know ITB is far better than ITA

 

[BlueStreak]

I just got started this year in an 84 GTI also. I am at about 2150 and I weigh 300 naked (try not to think too much about THAT)

So I would be down to 2100 if I was as slim as you! And that is with heavy Audi wheels, the evaporator still under the dash, and much underbody soundproofing left to grind off.

The GTI can make weight easily, so I need to find another excuse for hiding at the back of the pack!
[/b]

After reading that, now I'm worried about the scales. I'm running 13lb wheels, no evaporator, and about half of the factory soundproofing.

I wonder if my cage is just stupid heavy...I have not measured it and done the math to establish the total cage weight.

 

[BlueStreak]

A simple question:
What is the down side to allowing someone to add xx percentage to the spec line weight and move down one class?


I'm not worked up about this at all, I really like the current system. I'm just curious as to why so many seem to think that allowing the above dual classing per dual weight is a rotten idea. I understand it adds a small level of complication to the rulebook and the administration of the event, but is there something else big I am missing?

 

[dickita15]

Raymond, I think for Dual Classification to be acceptable it has to be uniform and transparent as well as consistently applied. Personally I am comfortable with “dual classification to address the tweener issue - where cars can reasonably be spec'd within the process in two classes.” But it must be applied in the same manner each time.

The part about cars moving up another class really can be done on a local level. In parts of the country they have classes such as ITX to allow double dipping.
ITB could run in the same race group as ITBx. ITBx would be for any legal ITC car.
ITA could run with ITAx. ITAx would be for any legal ITB or ITC car.
ITS could run with ITSx. ITSx would be for any legal ITA, B or C car. And so on. If there is room in race groups it would be for the region to do.

Obviously I am in favor of DCs because I see the upside and no one has been able to point out to me the down sides.

 

[JoshS]

Obviously I am in favor of DCs because I see the upside and no one has been able to point out to me the down sides.
[/b]

- It's a lot of work to calculate the weights
- The number of listings would triple.
- It's very confusing for anyone outside of the IT community (even other racers)
- Some perceive the ability to double-dip as unfair, if their car can't do it (think non-IT people)

I'm 100% against dual-classifications, with a couple of well-defined exceptions:
- Creation of new classes - if listings in the new class are also in an existing class, the existing listing can stay around for a fixed amount of time (maybe 1 season)
- Reclasses - same thing, DC for a fixed amount of time (1 season)

Now -- I don't have a huge amount of angst about "slower" cars running in a "faster" class, without modifications, i.e., an ITB car choosing to race in ITA, at its ITB weight. But to me, such an allowance is really an event operations issue, i.e., up to the stewards. I do not believe a rule should be codified that allows it for one category. But if the event operators wanted to put such a thing in the event supps, they would be more than welcome to do it.

I suspect you (Dick) won't find my reasons compelling, and that's your choice, but I absolutely abhor the idea of DCs.

 

[dickita15]

Now -- I don't have a huge amount of angst about "slower" cars running in a "faster" class, without modifications, i.e., an ITB car choosing to race in ITA, at its ITB weight. But to me, such an allowance is really an event operations issue, i.e., up to the stewards. I do not believe a rule should be codified that allows it for one category. But if the event operators wanted to put such a thing in the event supps, they would be more than welcome to do it.
[/b]

I fully agree.

I suspect you (Dick) won't find my reasons compelling, and that's your choice, but I absolutely abhor the idea of DCs.
[/b]

You are right Josh about my opinion, but thank you for articulating your reasons.

 

[Eagle7]

Option #2:
I am also open to the idea of allowing any cars to compete in a "higher" class at will, only because it does not require any work on SCCA's part other than to make the allowance, and because those cars should not have a competitive advantage given the process that classed them in the "lower" class.[/b]

Hope I got the right person quoted.

This could create a grouping problem if you allowed any IT car to move up to any IT class. Put an ITC car into a group where ITR is grouped with GT-1 and see what the steward thinks.

 

[RSTPerformance]

A simple question:
What is the down side to allowing someone to add xx percentage to the spec line weight and move down one class?
I'm not worked up about this at all, I really like the current system. I'm just curious as to why so many seem to think that allowing the above dual classing per dual weight is a rotten idea. I understand it adds a small level of complication to the rulebook and the administration of the event, but is there something else big I am missing?
[/b]

I don't think it is feasible to add any amount of weight to a top ITA car to bring it down to the speeds of an ITB car... That is my issue with that. Sure ITB down to ITC is feasible almoast, and ITS down to ITA is again almost feasible but overall it is far more difficult IMO.

- It's very confusing for anyone outside of the IT community (even other racers)
-[/b]

First and only good downside I see, however it is only a downside due to lack of education... a totaly different issue all together.

Hope I got the right person quoted.

This could create a grouping problem if you allowed any IT car to move up to any IT class. Put an ITC car into a group where ITR is grouped with GT-1 and see what the steward thinks.
[/b]

Currently you have this with cars running in ITE and DP as they are gennerally grouped with GT1... The other option is SPU, and those are generally with SRF, another bad mixture...

Raymond

 

[Knestis]

Okay - so play this out for me.

Say you are one of a bunch of ITA cars at a VIR Regional, running for SARRC points. I own an ITB car but I have a guy who's willing to pay for the weekend's tires if I let him run a race. No problem - I can let him enter my car in ITA, since A and B are in different groups.

You and everyone else at the track would be cool with that, right?

He gets SARRC ITA points, right? Like if someone has a little off or something busts? Or if he just beats them? Like a "real" ITA car...?

Or does he get to enter but is forced to run for no point or trophy? If he does, and he influences the outcome of the race (say he's a knucklehead and takes out 3 guys in the season points in T1) is that just a sucks-to-be-you kind of moment?

Or let's say that even with the extra 7" wheels he'll bring to the track (for that better sidewall angle ) and taking out the lead I have hidden in the rear bumper to make the ITB weight, we can't get him to the ITA spec weight - does the ITAC have an obligation to fix that? Do they have enough hours in the evenings to address all of the requests to keep people happy in TWO classes? :026:

K

I don't think it is feasible to add any amount of weight to a top ITA car to bring it down to the speeds of an ITB car... That is my issue with that. Sure ITB down to ITC is feasible almoast, and ITS down to ITA is again almost feasible but overall it is far more difficult IMO. ...[/b]

But that's NOT the point since there's no consideration for on-track performance in the specification process. You could make an ITR BMW M3 fit the ITC parameters with enough lead. If I want to do that, why should some guys get what they want if I can't have my way, too? So what if I have to weigh 4500 pounds. I'm not violating Rule 1 or Rule 2. Am I?

You're going to discover right quick that the power/weight math works pretty well in a narrow band, when other factors are similar but you get too far out on the distribution curve and all of a sudden, the fact that my M3 won't go around corners very fast is more than made up for in top end. Plus I'm REALLY fun for the Civics to try to deal with in the twisty bits.

K

 

[BlueStreak]

K

Thanks-I understand the opposition to the idea a little better now.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Some good discussion here. Where I stand at the moment:

DC's for tweeners - I still like the idea. Let the market decide. Biggest issue is to codify a 'tweener' and spell it out in the ITCS that those types of 'border cars' will be the only ones considered. Hard to do and a hard message to tell someone their ca is NOT a tweener.

DC's for cars that move up or down a class - 1 year DC. Specific mention on the spec line with expiration date.

DC's for everyone - do it locally.

 

[mom'sZ]

Some good discussion here. Where I stand at the moment:

DC's for tweeners - I still like the idea. Let the market decide. Biggest issue is to codify a 'tweener' and spell it out in the ITCS that those types of 'border cars' will be the only ones considered. Hard to do and a hard message to tell someone their ca is NOT a tweener.

DC's for cars that move up or down a class - 1 year DC. Specific mention on the spec line with expiration date.

DC's for everyone - do it locally.
[/b]

Andy: I'm I understanding you that (in the above scenario) cars that move up or down a class would have a 1 year limit but tweeners would not? (if you were king that is) To me, a time limit on the tweeners, with how the cars would eventually be classed (say based on participation) spelled out ahead of time would be a lot more palatable then DC forever for tweeners. More then a year may be nessasary to decide though me thinks. I agree there would be a lot of bickering over whether a car was a tweener or not. Personally I don't like the idea of dual classification just mostly because it muddles the classifications. Kirk's scenario where people use it to enter more races makes me even more uncomfortable. But in regions were car counts are low it might help the folks running the show. Isn't moving cars up or down a class in itself supposed to be a solution for tweeners? or just misclassed cars? So only cars that didn't get considered the first time through are eligible? To me, letting cars that get moved remain in there old class for one year, but not allowed to use it to enter two races, seems a courtesy I would be least bothered by. I wouldn't even call it dual classification, just a transition period, so as to not let the camel's nose into the tent.