IT Process - Run All IT Cars Through it or not?

[Ron Earp]

The new directive from the CRB states that the IT classification process will not be used to re-run all the cars currently classed in IT, that it can only be used for new cars coming into IT. Some members don't want this to happen and want IT left alone. Some members want all the cars, new and existing, run through the process to level the field and correct possible disparities. What do you think? Let's have a poll....

 

[gran racing]

Can you add one more option? Run cars through the process which the ITAC receives requests for?

People that care can take a minute or two and write a simple request.
Cars that people don't care about won't consume the ITAC's time.
It allows the ITAC to process requests in the order which they are received with some potential exceptions.

But all of this is meaningless at this point.

 

[quadzjr]

Agree with Dave.. need a third option.

 

[gran racing]

Ron, smack me across the back of the head and delete that other option if you'd like. Thought I'd add it before people start answering no based on the orignal options.

 

[Knestis]

Can you add one more option? Run cars through the process which the ITAC receives requests for?

People that care can take a minute or two and write a simple request.
Cars that people don't care about won't consume the ITAC's time.
It allows the ITAC to process requests in the order which they are received with some potential exceptions.

But all of this is meaningless at this point.

That reflects what I think is the best answer, and the one I advocated for on the ITAC. At this point though, it's a lost cause unless someone can sway the BoD's thinking and the influence trickles down the the CRB.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

I agreed with this approach as well. Leave cars untouched unless asked, and then process them.

The CRB sees this as a "comp adjustment" -- I disagree for the reasons Andy set forth above.

However, I do want to say there aren't any black helicopters here. The CRB believes it is doing what is in the best interests of IT. I disagree, and we have a fundamental culture clash (as Andy notes), but I respect their motivatinons, which are well intentioned.

 

[seckerich]

What the CRB wants is not well served by ignoring all but new classifications. These new cars are slow to get built unless they are a class leader and have little impact on the general IT population. Cars should be looked at on a per request basis to see if they are correctly classed. Not ignored because the current CRB thinks everything is OK so don't mess with it. I understand you might as well have kicked Keane in the head with the Audi deal, but there are plenty of other examples of misclassed cars. Limit the requests to a "rules season" so all changes are set in place by first race of following season. Then no changes until the following year. Gives you 6 months or more to gather data on the requests and make informed decisions. All this is based on still having a viable ITAC in place. We no longer have that.

 

[Ron Earp]

Ron, smack me across the back of the head and delete that other option if you'd like. Thought I'd add it before people start answering no based on the orignal options.

Good idea, thanks. No sense in having a poll that forces people to choose an option they don't want. That would be too much like a Presidential election.

 

[MMiskoe]

Not to nit-pick, but I'd be much more in favor of running all cars but telling people up front that there may not be any changes, especially for any car +/- 50# of its current weight.

Why all cars weren't run through the process aready is a complete mystery to me. I obviously don't get it.

 

[JeffYoung]

Matt, as I understand it (before my time on the ITAC), there was a fear that if the ITAC tried to process all cars at once there would be a push back from the CRB.

Second, honestly, it would be a herculean task.

The better route, I think, was the natural progression from where we are. We processed many of the popular cars surrounding the "bogey cars" and then would do one car here, or two there, based on member requests.

Josh Sirota had a great idea to REMOVE from the ITCS all car weights (not the cars, just the weights) for older/unraced/unloved cars and simply wait for a request to process it.

Otherwise, we are stuck trying to figure out what some mid 70s Fiat Coupe in ITC would make in IT trim.

 

[Knestis]

...Why all cars weren't run through the process aready is a complete mystery to me. I obviously don't get it.

The ITAC had discussions about doing just that going back about a year, to approximately the point where we got really serious about establishing standard practices around the last few wobbly places in the process and codifying the results. Given the very limited number of cars that were done in the first GR, and fears that the CRB would balk at being asked to revisit something that was sold as a one-time-only deal, we were feeling our way along pretty carefully.

As recently as immediately following our August con call, that idea was still in play. In fact, our CRB liaison asked whether the comprehensive spreadsheet we'd built for ITB cars would be representative of what they could expect from a total "do over" or Great Realignment II. I was dead set against it because (you listening, Travis?) that list of 80 cars(!) all used the standard 1.25 power multiplier: None had been through the confidence-tested review step that is (sorry, "was") supposed to look for evidence that a different value should be used. That WOULD have been an overly formulaic application of the process, completely ignoring the crucial - but controlled - application of subjectivity that the system deserves. That's a powerful reason that I advocated for doing them "just in time" in response to member requests, by the way: We didn't just plug the numbers mindlessly into a spreadsheet if it looked like our assumptions about power (stock HP, 1.25 multiplier) didn't stand up, so each car took time to work through.

About that same time, it was requested that Andy explain the "new process" to the CRB - ignoring our protestations during con calls that we were doing pretty much what the Darin-era process described, only more consistently, with much better record keeping, and fewer - like nearly zero - opportunities for shenanigans.

(You're going to have to take my word for it but in the time I was on the ITAC, I don't recall a single instance of the "horse trading" of pounds by members with different opinions, like resulted in that Civic DX getting listed 300 pounds heavy.)

These inquries, the lack of action on recommendations made going back several months, and finally the Audi weight bouncing back to us after Andy's call with the CRB finally began to make it clear - at least to me - that the CRB didn't have much inclination of letting the ITAC finish the business it had started.

We LITERALLY had just finished the reviewed draft version of our documentation of the process (v.2 if you adhere to the idea that it's different enough to be called that). While clearly NOT all in agreement, we were talking about how to disseminate that information to the membership. (That's called "transparency.")

In short, Mike - the answer to your question is "because the CRB didn't want it to happen."

K

 

[Ron Earp]

Second, honestly, it would be a herculean task.

On that point I disagree, that is, to run all the cars through the process.

A few car guys, $100 to cover online subscriptions to back archives of magazines on DVD, plus the interwebz and you have all the information you need. Throw in a well-designed Excel spreadsheet, the agreed upon process, and it is simply plug, play, and spit out numbers. A few guys could do ALL the cars in IT on a lazy Saturday afternoon with time left over for a cookout and beer.

You might have 1-2% of the cars that you can't get stock hp to agree on but the error will also be on the order of 1-2% - "this source says 189hp, this one 193hp". The group can decide how to deal with those. Hell, that sort of error is the LEAST of the worries.

Unfortunately it looks like the possibility of running all the cars through the process isn't an option.

R

 

[JeffYoung]

TST is no longer united!

I hear you, but I think you underestimate the power of the committee to slow things down and muck things up.

Could ONE person making calls on the accuracy of stock hp numbers and expected IT gain do it in short order? Probably.

But once you through in 7-9 competing viewpoints, things start to bog down.......

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ron,

With respect, you don;y have any idea the system of checks and balances that are in place now. If you want to run them all through at 25%, maybe a Saturday could work, but each car has to be looked at very closely.

 

[Ron Earp]

I hear you, but I think you underestimate the power of the committee to slow things down and muck things up. =

There is no doubt I underestimate the power of a committee. I do respect committees, but only to a point. Someone has to have a clear vision and lead or the committee will invariably return a mediocre result.

No sense in arguing about can it or can it not be done. Tis mote. It ain't gonna happen since the CRB got a clear vision and said "NO!".

Oh, and TST untied? There is a reason the TR8 hasn't been running this year. I decided I could improve my finishing place at least once position in the ITS ranking with no British Steel in the way. Speaking of which I have an urge to go Breaking the Law.

 

[StephenB]

I voted NO

At this point the CRB has made a decision and they should stick to it so we can move on. WE all made the choice to drive the car we are driving, but I'm sure you saw my other post and know how I feel on that. Lets stick with what we have (Stability now) and move on. Flip flopping and changing the rules every few months is not what I am interested in.

IF the CRB hadn't made a decision and this was asked last week I would have said YES run ALL cars through the process. I DO feel that all cars should be on the same playing field AKA same classification process. HOWEVER I also can take responsibilty and ownership for MY DECISION to build and race the car I currently am which is why I am OK with the actual outcome of the CRB.

I would NOT support the idea of only running cars that are requested through the process UNLESS their was a 3 month request timeframe. VERY SHORT so that the ITAC can make suggestions and the CRB can make decisions that can be made by next year and then we can go race in a STABLE environment knowing what our competition will look like in the future.

Stephen

 

[RSTPerformance]

Stephen are you crazy??? We have spent thousands of dollars and driven our asses off... Our family has dedicated years of service to this club and we have witnessed the entire evolution of IT... We (or more me) discovered that this IT process has shown that we have a distict disadvantage and our sole performance has also questioned the valadility of the ITAC and its classification processes that currently exists and are trying to revamp.

Cars should get rerun through the process when questioned (or requested). As rules change and new cars are classed old cars that are still being raced should remain competitive... That is stability. Having to buy a new VW everytime a new one is classed is terrible stability for an entry level class looking for good (no the best) competition.

ITAC-

Why is the Audi such a friggen big deal.

Why are NONE of my requests responded to after al last a year of multiple requests?

How can I continue to support the running of this club (I am a Volunteer worker) when I am recieving NOTHING in return?

I know it is not the ITAC... But why doesn't the CRB & ITAC get my brother and I on the phone so we can discuss our friggen cars so it stops holding up the rest of the class?

Raymond "enough is enough about the dam Audi's... Once we can afford to build something different we won't be racing them anymore anyhow, and if I could afford it I wouldn't be racing in SCCA anymore either" Blethen

PS: anyone know who I can e-mail in SCCA that will listen? I am getting ready for a mass e-mailing which generally gets me into trouble... Errr

 

[StephenB]

Stephen are you crazy??? We have spent thousands of dollars and driven our asses off... Our family has dedicated years of service to this club and we have witnessed the entire evolution of IT...

Imagine what you could have done if you picked a car that performed on paper compaired to the other cars in your class. YOUR CHOICE TO RACE YOUR CAR.

Cars should get rerun through the process when questioned (or requested). As rules change and new cars are classed old cars that are still being raced should remain competitive... That is stability. Having to buy a new VW everytime a new one is classed is terrible stability for an entry level class looking for good (no the best) competition.

IF the process works the current cars SHOULD NOT get classed at a better performance or competitive advantage. If they are incorrectly classified they have 4 years to make corrective adjustments. What you are discribing is a process unlike what the CRB wants going forward.


Ah shit it's a good thing we live far away from eachother
Stephen

 

[RSTPerformance]

I pcked my car because I love Audis... Never expected to do well with that car, you know that of all people. We had sucess, and Realisticly depending who shows up we still do. However with this new process came cars that we could no longer compete with... Let's be realistc... Dave gran much faster, Beren Peter way way faster... Vaugn Scott another one we could never keep up with... There are also plenty of cars we can't beat prior to the process... Ken bubbard, Scott Carlson, Eric Curran.

My point in the entire year long bull shit is not about me, I could care less, as with you I want to have fun... However things need to be fair for our members. Cars should remain competitive and if a new process is introduced 4 years ago or today anyone who wants thier car rerun through the process deserves that right. Also someo es request should not get shot down simply because one set of twins were sucessful with the car. KNOWONES performance should be used to influence the process and somehow our performance is influencing that process. IT isn't right and shows a major breakdown in the organization.

Raymond "meet you at home depot in 7hrs..." Blethen

 

[Eagle7]

I voted yes. My letter to the BOD/CRB sent 9/20/09:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have been very pleased over the last few years to see the Improved Touring classification process progress from subjective judgements without documented rationale to one based on specified characteristics of cars with uniform application. If I understand correctly, the only subjective factor used by the ITAC in the current classification process is the horsepower gain in IT trim that can be achieved by the car, and any deviation from a default power gain multiplier must be supported by documented evidence.

One of the primary tenants of this process is that on-track performance is never to be used as the sole factor in setting a weight that does not conform to the process, but is only used as a trigger to search for evidence that the assumptions used when classifying the car were incorrect. I wholeheartedly support this process, and believe it has rejuvenated IT into one of the most popular categories in SCCA.

My only complaint with the current process is that it is not transparent enough. I would like to see all the classification factors published for each and every car, and the rationale for any non-standard factors published as well. Further, I understand that not all IT cars' weights have been set using this process. I would like to see each and every car's weight reset using this process.

One factor that has been huge in achieving this process is the open communication that the ITAC has conducted on the ImprovedTouring.com forums and other public forums. The ITAC members are to be commended for their participation with the membership in discussing issues that are often controversial. Without this open communication, I believe we would be much more driven by the private philosophy of a few individuals, and could not have achieved the member satisfaction that IT now enjoys.

I have recently seen indications that the CRB may not yet support the approach used by the ITAC. Specifically, 1) they may like to reserve the right to subjectively set the weight of a car based solely on its perceived on-track performance or its perceived on-track potential, and 2) they would like to limit the communication between the ITAC and the membership in general. I believe both of these practices would lead to abuse of the classification process by a small group of individuals behind closed doors - not that those individuals' motives are not above-board, but that their process is flawed.

Summary - I fully support the direction that the ITAC has taken, and encourage that it be carried forward to its conclusion.

Also, please ask Kirk Knestis to reconsider his resignation from the ITAC, which I believe was based solely on concern #2 above. I believe Kirk has been a tremendous asset to the ITAC and will be sorely missed.

Sincerely,
Marty Doane
West Michigan Region, Great Lakes Division
ITS RX-7
Member #321263