Dual Classifications in IT

I too was opposed to the concept of DC, except in specific cases like the ITS -> to ITR example, and then I was for it if applied categorically and with a sunset clause.

It's neater that way.

But then I tried to think of WHY I was opposed.

I couldn't come up with a good reason. I didn't like it because historically it didn't exist, but historically, the class poobahs didn't want to admit errors, so anything like that could never happen! It's neater, but again, thats not a terrific reason.

And yes, of course...just because I can't think of a good reason doesn't mean one doesn't exist, or won't come up........... but you'd think with all the people responding, (and smart ones at that), that SOMEBODY would come up with a good reason or scenario other than "I don't like it, just because", or "It COULD be a bad idea down the road".

I'm not saying that they're wrong...it very well MAY be a bad idea down the road, but i just want to see how and why...


If there were no advantages to the idea, then I'd see no reason for a change....but there ARE advanteges, and to balance those, I need to see disadvantages.
 
After much thought, I suspose the worst case would be for one make to become dominant in more than one class. Also, if this chassis had a broad base to support it across multiple categories (S, A, and B for example), or even different prep levels. Then it would be awfully hard to dislodge the core group who support the status quo, and IT withers except for the few who come into IT wanting to run the dominant chassis. Who's to say this is impossible?
 
"The upside is happier customers. The reasons have been stated in this thread. More options for certain cars, increased multiple run group options, easier entry into Club Racing, a potential solution for tweeners, increased revenue for the club, etc."

What are the downsides? - I can't think of any.

I would also take it anoher step further and I don't see why a "lower potential" car could not elect to run in a faster class, such as an ITC car runing as an ITB car. It "shouldn't" win so why not? It will only give people more options and places to spend their $$$. besides it would be fun finishing in the top 3 in ITS if it were to rain with My Audi ;)

ok in my "another step" thought I thought of a possible downside...

In the Northeast ITC cars are almoast as fast as ITB cars, and if those cars were allowed to run in ITB (DC) with less weight they could be as fast. Those drivers might feel like taking on the challenge and if they did you could see a near extinsion of a class that already has low counts. Personally I think that a lot of the ITC races are the best races that NER has. 4 or 5 cars running neck to neck for first place and last place at the same time, it would be sad to see even 2 of the cars go for the ITB challenge and forget about ITC. Its one example but realistic in my mind of the potential for one class to dominate and others to fade into the sunset. :015: Although others will certainly view it as a whole new challenge for them!!!

Raymond "Looking at both sides, I still like the idea!!!" Blethen
 
Greg brings up a legitimate unintended concequence from the other thread:

What happens when DC's cars fill up run groups thereby 1. Not allowing "1-race" drivers to fit in the group and 2. So many cars are running that the racing day gets shortened because of the DC factor.

Couple of points:

1. If the run group is buldging at the seems, I can see dropping drivers that are double dipping. If a driver is only driving in one race group, he has as much right to be there as anyone else.

2. If there 100 Miata's and they all double up and the need to shorten the day for everyone is implemented, the 'why' of that needs to be addressed. Do we start to REALLY qualify? Do we send the bottom times to a consolation group (still filling up grid space)? Do we consider eliminating the 'smaller' Regional only classes (like ITE, SPU, SPO, etc.) in an effort to fit the high ticket classes? Did you know NER has two versions of Club Ford and 2 versions of Formula Atlantic?

3. I hear shouts from the mountain top for 'this car can do it so I should be able to also'. But as of right now, we can. Every region has an IT catch-all, probably called ITE. Why are those who want equality not excersizing their current ability to do so? An SM will not run at the front of a competitive ITA field just like an ITS car won't run at the front of a competitive ITE field. Add to that - that most cars only really fit into one class. See my example of the VW Golf MK III (2000 in ITA, 2350 in ITB and 2760 in ITC - can't get to 2000 and who is gonna add 400lbs of ballast just to run another run group?)

In the end, I think that each Region has the ability to do what is right for it's members while trying to maximize revenue. If we bust out, action can be taken - but I think it's a local policy issue.

Kirk - you are the policy guru, does it make sense for the 10,000 foot policy to 'allow' for the double dipping while local policy can allow for it's restraint should it's liabilities encroach on it's benefits?
 
Andy, you have touched on a point that I had not thrown in yet. While NER may be seeing robust and full fields, we are not seeing that in CenDiv Area 4 (Great Lakes). Nearly every weekend has seen lower car counts - everyone seems to be blaming either gas prices or more localized the Runoffs move away from M-O.
I like any option that can open up more opportunities for racers to race (in Indy we have targeted SM the last couple years trying to draw those folks in).
BUT, I don't think DC is the way to go for "tweeners". If it's seat time, have the second racer run ITE/ITX/SP-whatever if they want. If it's a single racer, make a point to allow crossover - we try and run SM and ITA in seperate groups so we get the crossover (read $$$$ for the Region). Is it fair to non-Miata drivers? Probably not, but most times the ITE class is available for more track time. Still don't think it's fair? Then buy a Miata (I had considered it when I started racing last year).
Use the DC with a sunset for the current ITS/ITR concerns and give it a sunset.
 
Steve,

Thanks for weighing in. One of the reasons we have full fields is that we run on 1.5 and 1.6 mile stuff most of the time. Which is why I ask the policy question about Regions being allowed to do something until it becomes a burden (albiet a good one), then they can correct as neccessary.

DC's for tweeners is a good idea IMHO. It SHOULD provide a boon in interest of drivers of those cars. If a car can't fit into either of two classes, we have failed.

I don't like the 'buy a whatever' thought process either. We need to try our best to fit the most possible drivers in under a cohesive set of rules.
 
(turns corner, moves toward being productive)

SO, the cases that are even eligible for consideration of dual classification include - and ONLY include...

1. Cars already listed in ITS but subsequently listed in ITR

What else? And PLEASE, whatever you do, don't start listing cars NOT eligible for DC status. That list can't be comprehensive so leaves another door open to interpretation and re-purposing.

K
 
(turns corner, moves toward being productive)

SO, the cases that are even eligible for consideration of dual classification include - and ONLY include...

1. Cars already listed in ITS but subsequently listed in ITR

What else? And PLEASE, whatever you do, don't start listing cars NOT eligible for DC status. That list can't be comprehensive so leaves another door open to interpretation and re-purposing.

K
[/b]
Click to expand...

OK, for the sake of a discussion point:

get out your 2006 GCrs, turn to page ITCS 2....

In the "Specifications" section of the ITCS, after the paragraph ending with:

".......an assement of class equity shall be made and the vehicle's minimum weight shall be established."

ADD:

"In the rare event that a vehicle has proven to be unable to acheive class equity as the required minumum weight to do so is unreasonably low, and there are existing hardware issues that would prevent a move of all the examples of said vehicle to a lower class, the vehicle will be considered for dual classification. Dual classification will also be extended to those vehicles moved upwards into a new class from an exisiting class"

Reactions??
 
Well NOW I understand the core of your position. It wasn't clear to me before. I don't happen to agree with you. I see it as maximizing the fun I can have at a race weekend given the parameters in which it's presented to me (not that I do it - but if I needed to break a motor in before ITA and ITE was available at an earlier run group, that would be selfish?). Like I said, the Region would have the ability to squash any double driver efforts, should it become a liability to any one - or all the run groups. I think your view is short sighted - it's a good problem to have too many entrants and then have to decide the best way for all members to scale back.

Wouldn't his be possible: (Your region may vary it's classes)

Every SS car could double up in IT

Every IT car could double up in ITE

Every Prod car could double up in SPO/SPU

Every GT car could double up in SPO/SPU

So maybe we need to determine when it becomes 'unfair' to others. Defining a ceiling of sorts (of course this is a Regional issue).


And this is most certainly a fair statement.
[/b]
Click to expand...

What about the cars that can't race anything but the catch-all class? Where do they get to DD? What happens when the catch all class gets clogged up with slower cars, so that some can run 2, 3 or even 4 different groups? Where do the fast guy's who's only option is the catch-all class go? Home?

I say make it a 2 year, maybe 3 max, period to switch over. If you want to try it with some down classes too, why not. But don't make a permenant feature. I agree with Kirk, it's just begging for trouble from some new ITAC down the road.
 
What about the cars that can't race anything but the catch-all class? Where do they get to DD? What happens when the catch all class gets clogged up with slower cars, so that some can run 2, 3 or even 4 different groups? Where do the fast guy's who's only option is the catch-all class go? Home?

I say make it a 2 year, maybe 3 max, period to switch over. If you want to try it with some down classes too, why not. But don't make a permenant feature. I agree with Kirk, it's just begging for trouble from some new ITAC down the road.

[/b]
Click to expand...

While I empathise with your example James, it kind of isn't something we can focus on when developing policy. In all actuality, those cars are not IT legal and your Region has found a place for you to run. It's the beauty of the SCCA system actually.

Like I said multiple times before, I think DCing should be used sparingly. For 'documented' tweeners and for cars that have been forced to move up. I wonder how we get from a few Miata's running in a couple classes to somebody running 4 groups and forcing 'regular' guys to go home? It's a major stretch - and one that can be policed at the REGIONAL level. I see it as a good thing that policy allows for all the small benefits of DCing but also allows for each Region to keep the horses in the barn by cutting their cake any way they see fit. The tools are - and always have been in place to make sure a train wreck doesn't have to happen.
 
...
"In the rare event that a vehicle has proven to be unable to acheive class equity as the required minumum weight to do so is unreasonably low, and there are existing hardware issues that would prevent a move of all the examples of said vehicle to a lower class, the vehicle will be considered for dual classification. ...[/b]
Click to expand...
Hmm. I confess I'm not sure what this is actually saying. My coworkers are always telling me things like, "explain it to me like I'm in the sixth grade." :)

** If a car can't, within the IT rules, actually GET to the minimum weight necessary to reach its current class equity target, why wouldn't it just be moved down a class?

** If by "hardware issues" we mean "it's got to be heavy enough in the new, lower class that its rollcage is no longer legal," the DC doesn't solve that guy's problem.

** Are we therefore talking about the DC only practically being applied to NEW cars (new cages, new logbooks)? That doesn't make sense because nobody would be dumb enough to build a new car, in its old class, where it's theoretically not competitive.

Maybe what we are actually talking about is NOT true "dual classification!"

Maybe it's functionally the grandfathering of cars with existing logbooks, allowing them to stay in their current class at their existing weights, while new examples are all listed in the new class at a lower weight (in the case of an upward movement, ITS > ITR) or a higher weight with legal-sized cage tubes (as in the A tweeners moving to B).

This would not coincidentally take the double-dip out of the question. An A-spec RX7 would be illegally light if it was entered in B, and (assuming the cage problem) would be illegal if it were simply leaded-up to the B minumum. Either way, it's a non-starter unless we ignore illegalities to allow double dipping. (Argh.)

The only other way to resolve this particular problem is to allow exemptions to the cage tube-size rule.

Or maybe we need to start with specific examples, and work to the general statement about DCs, if I'm off-base here...?

I think the ITS/ITR question is a lot easier, by the way. Are there any examples of where a car might be moved, say from A to S and sensibly be grandfathered?

K

Re-reading this, my head starts to hurt. SOMEONE PLEASE - give me an example we can work with!
 
The last sample text is so vague as to allow ALL KINDS of confusion/mischief. To my mind, putting the 325 in ITR is a "clear choice of classes."

But sorry - I wasn't clear. I need a clear example - or examples - of an actual car situation, around which we are writing the rule. Be concrete: What is the case for, say the MR2 to have dual listings? It starts with...

1. The ITA target class equity target dictates a minimum weight that the MR2 simply cannot achieve, within IT rules (is this true, by the way?)

2. ...?

K
 
Once you start permanetly classing cars in more than one class, it will be abused. If you think that the e-36 325 was a mess, how much harder would it be if it were dominant in more than one class.? A multi-class over-dog wouldn't just multiply the problem, it would raise it to the power of the number of classes that the chassis is in.

If the MR-2 can't reach it's target weight, why not just move it down? Surely the weight for the lower class won't be much more than it's old weight and it can keep the same cage spec's.
 
Jake's post from the other thread, slightly edited.
Certain ITA cars move to ITB.

Hmmmm thats not entirely cool, it's a big deal to move those cars down. New wheels, changed weights. Some might have extensive recaging to do as they were designed to run at a lower weight.[/b]
Click to expand...



Funny how DC wasn't even mentioned w/ these cars.


The more I read about people's thoughts on DC, the less I like it. What exactly is the point of allowing new ITR nee ITS cars to have DC? Give the cars a year w/ the option to run in ITS, but that's it. Also, when
 
Hmm. I confess I'm not sure what this is actually saying. My coworkers are always telling me things like, "explain it to me like I'm in the sixth grade." :)[/b]
Click to expand...

Thats why its been thrown out there...to get it shaken out!

** If a car can't, within the IT rules, actually GET to the minimum weight necessary to reach its current class equity target, why wouldn't it just be moved down a class?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Well, since you asked for a concrete example, I'll give you one that I'm all too familiar with and happen to know the numbers on. There may be others, but I can't think of many off the top of my head.

The RX-7 in A is a car that has a weight that is too low for certain chassis to make, but even for those rare chassis that barely acheive weight, it's arguably not hitting the process target. But...half or so of the cars built (based on a poll a few months back) have cages that are too small for an increased weight. That makes moving the car down a class problematic, as half the cars would need to be recaged, as well as re-wheeled. The other half are overbuilt for the spec weight. Allowing DC gives those cars that ARE overcaged the option of moving to a new class at a heavier process weight, or staying put if they prefer. The cars built to the smaller cage specs can stay put, or recage. DC is a reasonable solution in this case, as it offers options to a large contingent of cars that otherwise might be "barn queens".

** If by "hardware issues" we mean "it's got to be heavy enough in the new, lower class that its rollcage is no longer legal," the DC doesn't solve that guy's problem.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Actually, in certain rare cases, it does. See above.

** Are we therefore talking about the DC only practically being applied to NEW cars (new cages, new logbooks)? That doesn't make sense because nobody would be dumb enough to build a new car, in its old class, where it's theoretically not competitive.
[/b]
Click to expand...

No..hopefully the process can fit cars in reasonably well to start with. It's the existing models on the books that create the issues.

Maybe what we are actually talking about is NOT true "dual classification!"

Maybe it's functionally the grandfathering of cars with existing logbooks, allowing them to stay in their current class at their existing weights, while new examples are all listed in the new class at a lower weight (in the case of an upward movement, ITS > ITR) or a higher weight with legal-sized cage tubes (as in the A tweeners moving to B).
[/b]
Click to expand...

It could be applied to existing logbooks only...that is an option. In my GCR paragraph example I would refer to it as "Extremely limited DC-ing where a very strict set of guidelines were met"

This would not coincidentally take the double-dip out of the question. An A-spec RX7 would be illegally light if it was entered in B, and (assuming the cage problem) would be illegal if it were simply leaded-up to the B minumum. Either way, it's a non-starter unless we ignore illegalities to allow double dipping. (Argh.)
[/b]
Click to expand...

Actually, double dipping is still a very infrequent possibility. An ITA RX-7 with a big cage COULD run A with no ballast, then add ballast and swap wheels and run B. Of course, thats dependent on the Regions DP policy, the rungroups and the timing.

The only other way to resolve this particular problem is to allow exemptions to the cage tube-size rule.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Been there, discussed that, got the "Rejected" stamp. Not gonna fly.

Or maybe we need to start with specific examples, and work to the general statement about DCs, if I'm off-base here...?

I think the ITS/ITR question is a lot easier, by the way. Are there any examples of where a car might be moved, say from A to S and sensibly be grandfathered?

K

Re-reading this, my head starts to hurt. SOMEONE PLEASE - give me an example we can work with!
[/b]
Click to expand...

OK, I tried!

On the ITA to ITS thing, I am doubtful as to the actual need, as the PCA process is rather thorough. One car comes to mind as apossible problem, and there is an "out" in the PCA description for dealing with it.
 
The RX-7 in A is a car that has a weight that is too low for certain chassis to make, but even for those rare chassis that barely acheive weight, it's arguably not hitting the process target. But...half or so of the cars built (based on a poll a few months back) have cages that are too small for an increased weight. That makes moving the car down a class problematic, as half the cars would need to be recaged, as well as re-wheeled. The other half are overbuilt for the spec weight. Allowing DC gives those cars that ARE overcaged the option of moving to a new class at a heavier process weight, or staying put if they prefer. The cars built to the smaller cage specs can stay put, or recage. DC is a reasonable solution in this case, as it offers options to a large contingent of cars that otherwise might be "barn queens".[/b]
Click to expand...
OK - thanks, Jake. That helps! Now, write a simple explanation that generalizes this situation, without giving away the farm...

Dual classification - the listing of the same make/model of car in two IT classes at different process weights - will be granted for cars reclassified into the next-lower IT class, if and only if...

1. Its class equity target in the higher class requires a minimum weight that is effectively not achievable under the IT rules, with a driver exceeding the 180# allowance, AND...

2. Its class equity target, in the proposed lower class, is high enough so as to make necessary a larger diameter/wall thickness tubing for required rollcage elements, than was allowed based on its race weight in its original higher class.

Hmmm?

Now, what's the argument - and an example - for DC status for cars being moved UP?

K

EDIT - notice I specifically said "will be granted" rather than putting in a bunch of crappy, waffley language. That "will be considered" stuff leaves room for screwing around. If it "will be considered," it might be granted as a "rare" situation, even if it is some goofy-assed situation that none of the current ITAC'ers would approve.
 
I favor Dual Classifications and do not feel that this process needs to be rationed or used as a last resort for "proven tweener cars." Dual Classification is a tool to, as Jake stated, get cars out of the barn and on the track.

What I think I am seeing in this discussion is that some of you do not know how to regard a car with dual classifications. A car that exists in two classes is really two different cars that must conform to two different rule sets. For example an F Production Miata is not the same as an E Production Miata. They may look the same but they ain't the same and the car owner, competitors and tech officials always manage figure this out IMHO.

As far as "double dipping" is concerned what are you worried about? In Midiv this is common. In IT we get double dipped by Spec Miatas that run in ITA and T1, T2, T3 and AS cars that run in ITE. You should have seen the Ferrari T1 car that ran in the IT group as an ITE car at the June HPT National. Scary but we survived. I personally own a car that can compete in 5 classes:

ITA
IT7
EP
GT3
GT2

Is that quintupple dipping?
 
What I think I am seeing in this discussion is that some of you do not know how to regard a car with dual classifications. A car that exists in two classes is really two different cars that must conform to two different rule sets. For example an F Production Miata is not the same as an E Production Miata. They may look the same but they ain't the same and the car owner, competitors and tech officials always manage figure this out IMHO.


[/b]
Click to expand...

Scott,

The Prod comparrison is a bit of a red herring as well. Yes, the EP and FP Miatas are different, but then again, so are the 1.6 and 1.8 EP Miatas. Same car, same class, different rules/prep levels. And to take it even further, it looks like next year, you'll have 5 different flavors of Spridget in HP (948 full prep, 1098 full prep, 1098 limited prep, 1275 limited prep, and 1275 hybrid). So yes, they can sort these things out in Prod (through comp. adjustments), what's being discussed for IT DC is the same car at two different weights (and possibly w/ different wheels). Not really the same animal as Prod DC. What you're talking about w/ the Miata E/F DC is similar to what we have today in IT w/ things like the 2nd gen. Golf. Run it w/ a 1.8 8v and it's in ITB, or run it w/ a 1.8 16v and it's in ITA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top