Making a Classification Request

Originally posted by Knestis:
Kirk

(who is now worried again)
Click to expand...

Yah... 'cause heaven forbid we make some sensible reclassifications or adjustments to IT... The whole structure could crumble if we do that...
rolleyes.gif


In many cases... some of us are not aware of potential mis-classifications until someone brings them to our attention... What difference does it make is Joe-racer brings it to our attention, or we discover it ourselves?

People request/petition for things all the time and we have no problem saying no when they don't make sense... why would that change?

Just relax already... can it really get worse than the "car of the month" club we have today??



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Well... since adjusting weights in IT is currently not legal... it doesn't really matter how you do it!
Click to expand...

You crack me up Darin, you really do. But wait, it's not an 'adjustment', it's a 'correction'! ROTFLMAO!!!!!


Kirk,

You really didn't think that this wasn't going to happen, did you?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
I must agree with Darin. I see no issue with competitors bringing issues to the fore in the form of adjustment requests.
Where things go wrong is if the board handles said requests incorrectly by showing favoritism and politics.

Yes, I know... Please don't tell me. I KNOW!

But you have to start somewhere. I think what's going on is a good start.

Scott, who sold his Integra GSR because he just didn't want to fill a non-dominating car with lead and a spare tire and would love to see that car classified at a reasonable weight so it COULD chase down some of these BMWs everyone's always bitching about.

Just my little old opinion though.
 
Okay - this is still largely academic because it hasn't come to this yet but humor me and play the "what if" game for a minute:

1. It will be OK for me to request that my car car be considered for a PCA (weight adjustment downward), right?

2. Will this be allowed after the car has been classified for 4 years (ie. can I decide that the "rare occasion" clause be considered)?

3. Is it OK for me to ask for my competitor's car to get MORE weight during the first four years of classification? After that?

4. This is going to be important - will requests for PCAs be put out for member feedback? Up until this happens, the barn door might still be closed but as soon as it DOES, the decision stops being about "manufacturer's published specifications," "racing performance relative to other vehicles," and "actual racing performance." (I'm giving up on the system not being based on perceptions of on-track performance.)

5. When PCAs are applied, will the CRB publish its rationale for doing so - the considerations on which the adjustment is made? This would be an opportunity to head off the greatest potential failure mode of this kind of system, even if it isn't grounded in a strict formula. The fact that there IS no formula makes this of particular importance and, if someone can't explain the thinking behind the change, the horses are well and truly headed for the hills.

6. If Joe Racer can request that his car be favorably adjusted, AND if member input (lobbying) is acceptable, AND if the process isn't transparent, AND if the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause remains on the books, doesn't anyone but me see the potential for this to go very wrong? How about in 5 years when the current ITAC membership has turned over?

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:

5. When PCAs are applied, will the CRB publish its rationale for doing so - the considerations on which the adjustment is made? This would be an opportunity to head off the greatest potential failure mode of this kind of system, even if it isn't grounded in a strict formula. K
Click to expand...

This (The classic one word response from the CRB) has always been a real issue with me. I understand theres a lot to do in not a lot of time, but if they discussed it, and they rejected it, they must have had a reason why. The past, many summations have been almost "snooty". A few seconds morefor the secretary would make a huge difference.

I have no problem with members writing a letter to alert the CRB of a perceived situation, but if the response is "No, too much performance potential", it makes me think that it wsan't considered or discussed.

I would prefer a statement with the reasoning behind the decision...heck, I'd prefer they wrote something like: "Ha ha! THAT'S funny...what are we idiots?? You think your BMW is too heavy?? Look around pal!" At least that way you'd know they talked about it!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 25, 2004).]
 
This is going to be important - will requests for PCAs be put out for member feedback? Up until this happens, the barn door might still be closed but as soon as it DOES, the decision stops being about "manufacturer's published specifications," "racing performance relative to other vehicles," and "actual racing performance." (I'm giving up on the system not being based on perceptions of on-track performance.)


We are in agreement. It has to be done right or we're in for a mess. If weight starts getting added to a certain car because ONE guy in ONE region is kicking everyone's ass, we have a problem. But I'm choosing to assume it will be done right, long term. I guess maybe I'm just optimistic.

Again, this opinion is coming from a guy that had a wonderful NASA race car (Honda Challenge) but SOLD it when he decided to go SCCA racing because the minimum weight was so unrealistic and crippling to the car. My '94 Integra GSR had a whole lotta cage (8 point, NASCAR bars, Petty bar, and excess triangulation in the rear), was fully IT prepped, and had a 225lb driver behind the wheel but STILL needed about 80lbs of ballast to make minimum weight. This is in a car that has yet to be accused of dominating or potentially dominating anything in ITS. This is just plain silly. Again, just to make sure the point is made... So silly that I SOLD the car. I loved that car.

Maybe I'm just looking at things through rose colored lenses, but I choose to think that we can improve these silly listings (the 92hp 88-91 Honda Civic DX in ITA while all of the VW GTIs are in ITB is another stupid assed classification) and can hopefully do so without making a bigger mess.

Scott, willing to take the chance to hopefully make IT make sense.
 
I still think the boards should review cars when a request is made by a member. Yeah, maybe that civic should be in ITB. All it may take is taking a few minutes to write a letter and the board will consider it.

I'd hate to see the board spending their time on cars that no one has expressed interest in having it reviewed.

Jake - I agree that it is tough to take the too much potential reason. I'd rather hear too little weight, too much HP, ect.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
 
Hey Scott, add the 96hp Datsun PL510 in ITC, and it's just something else to make you scratch your head. You've got cars that make w/in a couple of hp of each other, spread across three different classes.

Kirk,

You know where I stand on this. I think there's a HUGE potential for this PCA thing to go very wrong. And I already raised the question about what happens w/ the changing of the guard. All I got was a flip answer from Andy.

Jake,

I would love to see a little more information to go along w/ the decisions. If they think some car has too much performance potential, what's the issue w/ actually explaining why?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top