Dual Classifications in IT

[mustanghammer]

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 4 different flavors of Spridget in HP (948 full prep, 1098 full 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.
[/b]

Seems to me that the only difference between Prod and IT are the number of variables allowed by the rules. In Prod they have more to play with and in IT we have weight and maybe wheel width. The end result is the same - a car with two (or more) classification options. Problems?

 

[Bill Miller]

Seems to me that the only difference between Prod and IT are the number of variables allowed by the rules. In Prod they have more to play with and in IT we have weight and maybe wheel width. The end result is the same - a car with two (or more) classification options. Problems?
[/b]

If only it was that simple.

 

[Knestis]

<still waiting for a generalizable example of DC being appropriate to a car moving UP a class>

I've been convinced that, so far, there is precisely ONE type of case - Jake's example - that argues for DC on its merits for a group of cars, in some particular bind. If that is the case, write the rule to apply ONLY to that set of conditions, make DC applications automatic in those conditions, and we're in OK shape.

Write a big, floopy rule allowing the "consideration" blah, blah, blah and we set up the conditions for problems.

Someone make the next case.

K

 

[lateapex911]

<still waiting for a generalizable example of DC being appropriate to a car moving UP a class>

I've been convinced that, so far, there is precisely ONE type of case - Jake's example - that argues for DC on its merits for a group of cars, in some particular bind. If that is the case, write the rule to apply ONLY to that set of conditions, make DC applications automatic in those conditions, and we're in OK shape.
[/b]

Ok, great! One down...one to go.

Someone make the next case.

K
[/b]

Well, as I've said before, (hence the long response time), I think preexisting cars that get moved up should see some DC considerations.

Think about the Prelude or (gag, here I go...) the E36.

As an ITS car, the E36 needed to weigh 2850, and with the equipment level that fancy shmanzy BMWs carry, getting well below that was easy. Now, If you have a light chassis, (relative to spec weight) you have a luxury, and you can put that weight back on where you think it will do the most good. It's not unreasonable to think that many builders decided to put it in chassis stiffness and safety..aka, the roll cage. We see many cars with dual front downtubes, and other design details within the cage that are codependent.. It's not a simple matter to just start sawzalling tubes from some of these cars. It's reasonable to think that some of the participants may be looking at a significant project. Now, add to that the issues with the wheel package, and the possible regearing, (and it is not prudent to assume they already have one,) plus the whole rejiggering of the setup, and you can see that it's a significant investment in time and money that will be required, if they wish to compete at the same relative level as they did previously.

I think thats a significant point...by just moving the cars, we are essentially forcing a large expenditure of time and money to maintain competiveness, OR we are saying "Hey you can still race, but you're not going to be at the same level you were at". Is that fair to the guy who put the time and money aside and labored building his car for a season, and is now expecting to actually just race it to back up and do it again??

We think that the cars "Fit", based on their physical properties, better in the new higher class. But, they DO fit where they are now. For some owners, they may not have the time or money to do the conversion, and are content where they are. Forcing them to move could be forcing them to leave. others might leap at the chance to play in a higher class.

Perhaps the solution isn't to dual class the models affected, but to dual class the models affected that are existing logbook cars, and forcing the new logbook cars to run the higher class.

I hesitate to put a one year sunset date on it though as I don't see the great harm in allowing it on such a specific and limited basis, and I see greater harm and risk by not allowing it.

I think writing the requirement, as Kirk did above rearding the other example is very do-able in the case of moving up a class as well.

 

[Knestis]

Yeah - I'm not as easily convinced on this one, I'm afraid.

I recognize the logic but it's hypothetical. I can just as easily see "put that weight back on where you think it will do the most good" being operationalized with lead on the floor rather than cage tubes.

The e36 example also moves forward from the proposition that it "fits" where it is now, when in fact it does not. To fit in S, it should weigh a lot more than it currently does. They were built to 2850 - what's their proposed ITR weight again? How 325s slated for ITR placement, and by this I mean logbooked examples, have ballast installed, and how much?

Not convinced yet. Maybe one of the Hondas makes for a better case? Are there any non-ITS-to-ITR examples?

See, my revised point here - since I've accepted that I'm not going to be able to fight city hall and dissuade the decision-makers from doing this - is that if the DC thing REALLY only applies to a very few cases, the rule needs to be written JUST FOR THOSE CASES, in terms of the conditions that have to be met for its application.

Specifically.

Now, if the policy is being implemented to throw a group of entrants a bone, because they've been well and truly yanked around, the policy needs to SAY THAT. I'm on record as believing that 325 owners would have ultimately been better served if they'd just taken their lead and moved on, but all of the politiking catalyzed the creation of ITR - a good thing - so who's to say we're worse off at this point...?

K

 

[dickita15]

Here is what I do not understand about those who fear DCs. If the ITAC determined that a 1992 hupmobile fits the process in class X and a given weight you would be ok with using the process. If the same car fits class Y at some other given weight you would trust the process.
Now the ITAC has to make a subjective decision which class at which race racers would prefer. Why? If the process says it fits in two places why not do so and let the market decide which way to race the car.

I think IT is a better place to race now that we have PCAs and a process. Trust the process.

 

[Bill Miller]

and the possible regearing, (and it is not prudent to assume they already have one,) [/b]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Jake. I have a mid-pack car (at best), and I've got two different trannys, w/ different R&P ratios, and would build a third, if I thought it woudl get me anything. I don't think it's prudent to assume that they don't already have different gear setups.

We think that the cars "Fit", based on their physical properties, better in the new higher class. But, they DO fit where they are now[/b]

I really think you need to take a step back from this stuff, because you sure seem to have lost your objectivity. And E36 325 fits [sic] in ITS based on its physical properties? I don't think so, otherwise we wouldn't have spent all those months going back and forth over the SIR deal. I really can't believe that you can honestly say that an E36 325 fits [sic] in ITS, based on physical properties alone.

Perhaps the solution isn't to dual class the models affected, but to dual class the models affected that are existing logbook cars, and forcing the new logbook cars to run the higher class.[/b]

If you're using DC as a way to mitigate the conversion costs to existing racers, I don't see how you could look at it any other way. It costs what it costs to build a new car, there are no conversion costs.

I hesitate to put a one year sunset date on it though as I don't see the great harm in allowing it on such a specific and limited basis, and I see greater harm and risk by not allowing it.[/b]

Pure and total speculation, (not that anything isn't at this point in time), but how about gathering some feedback from the people that are impacted?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

...but how about gathering some feedback from the people that are impacted?
[/b]

The feedback we have received so far is as follows from potential DC'ers:

FWD Prelude guys love ITR so they don't care to be in ITS because they never had a chance

E36 letters all against ITR classification - your guess is as good as mine on that one. Maybe fear of the 'unknown' as opposed to knowing where they stand now.

MR2 guys love the thought of trying B at a higher weight

(I don't think the 12A is enough of a tweener anymore at the new weight...so I haven't asked anyone)

 

[mustanghammer]

Here is what I do not understand about those who fear DCs. If the ITAC determined that a 1992 hupmobile fits the process in class X and a given weight you would be ok with using the process. If the same car fits class Y at some other given weight you would trust the process.
Now the ITAC has to make a subjective decision which class at which race racers would prefer. Why? If the process says it fits in two places why not do so and let the market decide which way to race the car.

I think IT is a better place to race now that we have PCAs and a process. Trust the process.
[/b]

What HE SAID!

Couldn't agree more. This is about choice and possibly the extension of an older car's life span in IT. Not to mention the relative increase in resale value of a car that can be used in different classes and remain competitive as a result.

Yes, the PCA's do make IT better I am already seeing this even though my RX7 is hopelessly over-weight. The brand H cars in ITA got slower.

 

[lateapex911]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Jake. I have a mid-pack car (at best), and I've got two different trannys, w/ different R&P ratios, and would build a third, if I thought it woudl get me anything. I don't think it's prudent to assume that they don't already have different gear setups.
[/b]

But if you ASSUME they DO have all the stuff...and they DON'T, you're writing checks with their pocketbooks. That's not something I feel is prudent. I think that we need to err on the side that presumes they DON'T have multiple gearsets, etc. It's only fair. Am I alone in this??

I really think you need to take a step back from this stuff, because you sure seem to have lost your objectivity. And E36 325 fits [sic] in ITS based on its physical properties? I don't think so, otherwise we wouldn't have spent all those months going back and forth over the SIR deal. I really can't believe that you can honestly say that an E36 325 fits [sic] in ITS, based on physical properties alone.
[/b]

Well, if you are using the term "physical properties" to mean the 'natural' physical properties of a car, then really, very few really "fit". IT uses modifiers to make many cars fit a narrow performance window....in 99% of the cases that's weight. But one cars physical properties have been further adjusted by the clipping of it's top end power. Does it work? Well we all know it's possible. But I'm not comfortable that it's the "best" fit.

( A car that doesn't "fit" would be one that, after known solid development is not able to make the process numbers, and should be adjusted or moved to another class, or one that exceeds process numbers, and needs to be adjusted or moved to another class)

However, we now have cars that "fit" but were rather 'forced' into the class by overmanipulating the physical adjusters, that are up for movement to a higher class where it is felt they will be a more 'natural' fit. There may be owners who think it fits fine where it is, for various reasons, and would rather not change it. I have heard lots of feedback and think that there are many reasons for this, but no matter what, I think we need to respect the owners situations.

.... , but how about gathering some feedback from the people that are impacted?
[/b]

See below.