ITS e36 BMW

[Bill Miller]

development is only penalized if the end result makes attempts to put developed and undeveloped cars at the same laptime. the goal here is to put developed cars back into the strata we define as "correct as classed" or move that definition to fit them. if "we" really believe that 25% gains are a real nominal expectation (and it's as resonable a value as one could use to blanket a mix of cars like this) then that value is the one to use. anything exceeding gets pulled back, stuff that can't get there gets a bump. with data, when agreed upon, etc...

or like I said earlier, we could hold ourselves to a higher standard of discovery and do some real footwork to see what an engine might gain. it's difficult, and a real known answer on a new car would be imossible to determine exactly, but we could get a better feel for it, and make better assumptions than just throwing 25% (or 30, or 35) at everything that comes accross the "desk".

the point is to get a developed car into the right range. right now as you describe it, there are many above the indicated potential, so reset the goal. added development should get you higher in that box, lack of development means lower inside or below the box. make decisions based on what we know from actually well developed builds and expect the same work for any car (i.e. not lowering the target to make it more accessible). yes, that can put off new development for some, but those people still have the option of riding coat tails to a great degree using a known platform, and I'm sure that the OPMs, Flat Outs, and ISCs of the world will be more than happy to help them do so.

Chip, you're essentially talking about competition adjustments. (I'll save Kirk from saying it. BLEH!). But, I'm not sure what other way there is around correcting cars that don't make a 25% gain (either too high or too low). And using 'what we know' during the classification process is a defacto comp. adj., and yes, it punishes development. I guess the important question is, how close do you want the cars in IT to fit the regression line for their given classes? If you're trying to level the playing field, then yes, development gets penalized. And using whp gets at not only engine development, but driveline development. You have to ask yourself if that's the ultimate goal of IT.

I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, you want things to be balanced, and the competition to be good, but on the other, you penalize the folks that spend the time, money, and effort to improve their entire package. Tough spot.

 

[JeffYoung]

Chip, you're essentially talking about competition adjustments. (I'll save Kirk from saying it. BLEH!). But, I'm not sure what other way there is around correcting cars that don't make a 25% gain (either too high or too low). And using 'what we know' during the classification process is a defacto comp. adj., and yes, it punishes development. I guess the important question is, how close do you want the cars in IT to fit the regression line for their given classes? If you're trying to level the playing field, then yes, development gets penalized. And using whp gets at not only engine development, but driveline development. You have to ask yourself if that's the ultimate goal of IT.

I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, you want things to be balanced, and the competition to be good, but on the other, you penalize the folks that spend the time, money, and effort to improve their entire package. Tough spot.

Exactly.

 

[seckerich]

To a point Bill you are dead on. If you have one car running away with everything and the build is good, but not great, you have to ask questions. What we have is a class that seems to have crept up as a whole. The goal is close racing among different cars. Some would argue that if the rules are fair and cars are properly classed every one in the GCR could win. I doubt that will ever happen and you can't even get that close in "spec" Miata or SRF with single marque racing. I don't want to win because I have an overdog, any more than I want to lose because I am racing against one. Top builds in ITS are closer than any other class in IT with different cars better at different tracks. Screw that up and you repeat history. I promise I could give my car to Speedsource and David would find a few more tricks I have missed.

 

[JeffYoung]

Exactly again. We are in such a sweet spot right now in ITS with so many chassis that have just slight advantages at different tracks. 944s, 323, E30, Mustang, RX7, Miata, 240/260z, 280z, 280zx, 300zx, 240sx, TR8, Corrado, Prelude, Integra, Civic all can and do run up front.

The question is how to keep it that way as long as we can.

 

[Bill Miller]

Exactly again. We are in such a sweet spot right now in ITS with so many chassis that have just slight advantages at different tracks. 944s, 323, E30, Mustang, RX7, Miata, 240/260z, 280z, 280zx, 300zx, 240sx, TR8, Corrado, Prelude, Integra, Civic all can and do run up front.

The question is how to keep it that way as long as we can.

Until someone comes along and makes a big enough stink about why you're (the ITAC) not using 'what we know' to correct the cars that are documented to make more than a 25% gain.

 

[JeffYoung]

Until someone comes along and makes a big enough stink about why you're (the ITAC) not using 'what we know' to correct the cars that are documented to make more than a 25% gain.

Which is why I raised this issues...because that stink is starting to be made.

 

[Knestis]

...at which point the stink may be ignored. The Process MAY incorporate "what we [think we] know," but it does not HAVE to.

Kirk

EDIT - Bleah!!

 

[Bill Miller]

...at which point the stink may be ignored. The Process MAY incorporate "what we [think we] know," but it does not HAVE to.

Kirk

EDIT - Bleah!!

With all due respect Kirk, if that happens, the whole thing is pretty much out the window. The whole idea behind using 'what we know', was to address the cases where there was a significant deviation (up or down) from the expected 25% gain. If you've got documentation out there that supports that you've got cars making significantly more than expected hp, and the ITAC chooses not to use it, what's the point of even having a process? It's really no different than it was in the old days.

Look at it from the perspective of the new guy that reads the ops manual, knows that the Borgward GT makes closer to a 35% gain, but is spec'd based on a 25% gain. He knows that there's documentation that supports the 35% gain, provides it to the ITAC, and asks for a re-process. In the end, he gets told "Nope, but thanks for playing. Please accept our lovely consolation prizes." How is that any different than the old perception that certain cars got preferential treatment because of who was driving them, or who that driver happened to know?

Or better, how do you handle the case of the guy who's car got re-processed based on 'what we know', and got a nice 150# lead trophy for his effort, but you don't process other cars based on the same information, when it is out there?

I guess it's a question of staying true to the first principles of an objective classification process or pissing off a group of people because they were able to wring more out of their cars than anyone thought was possible?

I totally agree that it's a really tough spot, and I don't envy Jeff, Chip, or anyone else on the ITAC, for having to deal with it.

 

[Knestis]

Allow me to be less flippant and restate: The stink can be ignored if the there isn't a preponderance of data in which the ITAC has a high degree of confidence. It's semantics but "what we [think we] know" should get applied based on the data, not the volume of the complaining about the data.

Y'all will no doubt recognize that I don't have a lot of confidence that we ever truly know what think we know...

K

 

[Bill Miller]

Allow me to be less flippant and restate: The stink can be ignored if the there isn't a preponderance of data in which the ITAC has a high degree of confidence. It's semantics but "what we [think we] know" should get applied based on the data, not the volume of the complaining about the data.

Y'all will no doubt recognize that I don't have a lot of confidence that we ever truly know what think we know...

K

That, I agree with completely.

 

[lawtonglenn]

...but is spec'd based on a 25% gain. He knows that there's documentation that supports the 35% gain, provides it to the ITAC, and asks for a re-process. In the end, he gets told "Nope, but thanks for playing. Please accept our lovely consolation prizes."

um... why would anyone ASK for an INCREASED weight reprocess on a car they were preparing?

.

 

[Bill Miller]

um... why would anyone ASK for an INCREASED weight reprocess on a car they were preparing?

.

Nobody said it was his car.

 

[Knestis]

um... why would anyone ASK for an INCREASED weight reprocess on a car they were preparing?

.

Because they thought it might be good for the category to be more accurately balanced...?

Kirk (who requested that the weight of HIS car be "re-run" knowing that the Process would spit out a CORRECT WEIGHT higher than what was required)

EDIT - Frankly I think anyone who plays weight games or uses politicking to gain an advantage, rather than trying to win in fairly classed cars is a is a big, fat wuss.

K

 

[StephenB]

is a big, fat wuss.

K

Hahahah I couldn't resist... so they are fat and can't get their car down to process weight so in fear of others building the same car they raise the weight of the car so they are equal to others that may build and run the same type of car? TOTALLY kidding but I thought it was funny I know htat is now what you implied at all!


Stephen

PS: I think this has been a good healthy discusion. Glad it's happening, even if nothing changes at all, at least things are being discussed and hashed out in a civil pro-active way!

 

[Chip42]

Y'all will no doubt recognize that I don't have a lot of confidence that we ever truly know what think we know...

Noted. I agree that the "top" is usually unknown, but the average can be determined. if the "fast cars" are known, with confidence, to be making AT LEAST some gain greater that 25%, then reprocessing is "correct". Jeff's proposal is interesting in that it seeks to reset ITS based on these cars' current weight, their known gain, and a new weight factor to make the math work.

likely truths:
1) the ACTUAL gain of the top runners will remain cloaked in secrecy, so will liekly still be a few ticks above "what we know" and maintain the advantage of development.
1b) newly developed cars which exceed their expected gain will need to be tracked dilligently, and the understanding of adjustment should be made clear to soften the "lead trophy" feelings.

2) the power to weight gap to ITR will shrink, likely forcing more of these changes to reset R in relation to S. guys who can't drop ballast will be unamused (RX8, celica). I think the gap back to A will be fine, and on track it will remian unchanged (top cars stay at current weight).

3)it will change the tweener car status for the top half of IT. cars that become too light in ITR might be sent to ITS "heavy" assuming gain potentials in the 25% range are real peaks. guys who built cars to run in a certain group will most likely NOT want this.

4) we still will not have addressed the looming realities of modern stock drivetrains: sequential transmissions, diesels, direct injection gas engines, turbos, and combinations of these, which could force FURTHER adjustments to IT's weight and classing structure in order to stay relevant. we have ~3-5 years before this becomes a REAL problem.