May Fasttrack is out

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
You lost me on that one Andy.
Click to expand...

My bad. It sounded weird to me as I read it back to myself.

PCA's give the CRB the tools to make changes as they see fit. The goal is not to flow PCA's to every car in every class - so the no guarantee piece still fits. A "give my car a weight break and I will be competitive" request will always be read and responed to but the Production type effort isn't going to be there - I hope!

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Darin,

I'll try and put together something for you.

I guess I'm w/ Kirk on this. I'm very concerned by the subjective nature of the process. If they're going to go through the effort to generate a simulation, or at the very least, assign ratings for the things they'll look at, why not publish that information?

The fact that the mood of the BoD/CB changes w/ the people, pretty much demands that an open, objective process be put in place, least it be corrupted in the future.

Jake, I'm not convinced that that's how it's been done all along. Maybe some cars by some CBs, but I don't think it's been that way all the time. Which actually goes to my point above.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
I guess this is largely asked of Darin...
So if I'm digesting all of this right, the new rules would basically work like this...

And I'll use the aforementioned Scirocco as an example:
-1.7 Scirocco that is currently uncompetitive in ITB is reclassed to ITC (is it safe to assume that weight will be added to ensure it doesn't become an immediate ITC overdog?).
-After 2 years the classification weight is revisited to see if it was appropriate. It is adjusted (or not) accordingly.
-Same thing happens again after 4 years.
-After that, car is classed at set weight and can be expected to stay there.

Is this about right? Looking at recent listings for reclasses of the Neons and such it looks like some safety poundage was added from the get-go. I'm assuming this would be the basic approach for all of the reclasses???

Thanks again to all involved. I've been involved with rule writing and car classing before and it isn't much fun. The effort is needed and appreciated.
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
What I think you will see (details still pending) is some wording added to the ITCS that will, in effect, say something along the lines of "we'll do our best to group cars with like mechanical potential", which is really the best we can do. There is no way to take into effect a driver's tallent, financial position, or prep-skills... We can, however, do a better job of getting cars matched as far as the CAR'S potential goes, and I think this would be the goal.
Click to expand...

Darin, I think this is exceptionally well put.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Originally posted by Catch22:
Is this about right? Looking at recent listings for reclasses of the Neons and such it looks like some safety poundage was added from the get-go. I'm assuming this would be the basic approach for all of the reclasses???

Thanks again to all involved. I've been involved with rule writing and car classing before and it isn't much fun. The effort is needed and appreciated.
Click to expand...

I think that is basically about it...

As for the Neons... It's not really "safety poundage" at all... Some assumptions were made, as is necessary to begin the process of selecting a weight, but pretty much ALL of the reclassifications/classifications that have been suggested, as well as those coming, have been done using the same process...

As the PCA proposal states, we are looking at manufacturer's stated power numbers and specifications, and making some assumptions based on IT-Prep as to the potential of the cars. The cars are compared to others "standard" cars for the perspective class, and weights are developed based on that standard...

I know this is a little vague, but it's all I can offer at this point. Hopefully you can all be satisfied at the moment that each of these cars has had some assumptions made about them and then each treated to the SAME process for determining weights... Some of these may miss the mark a bit, but I really don't think they are THAT far off. Certainly there will be those that prove to be a little heavy, but better a little too much in that direction and IN the CORRECT CLASS, than the other direction and in the WRONG class... Look at it this way... minimum weights ought not be a problem to achieve!
wink.gif


The DOHC Neon may look a little heavy, but keep in mind that it makes 150hp out of the box... 10 more than the 240SX, and it has shown that it has potential for better performance... When you compare it's specifications with that of the 240SX, the recent Acura additions, the Honda, etc... I'll think you'll see that with IT prep, it should be a really decent ITA car...

The SOHC car makes 138hp out of the box, only 2 LESS than the 240SX, and is classified 80lbs lighter... It too, should be a really good ITA car...

I hope that most will agree that efforts are being made to at least hit the right class, and interest in racing IT has suddenly been improved...

Stay tuned...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Darin,

Please tell us a little more about this process. Who developed it, and why hasn't it been published? After all, there have been numerous requests made to have this information published.

Also, I don't think expects driver ability/budget/prep skills to ever factor into the equation for setting a car's specs. Single examples should never be used as a basis for adjustments.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,
Please tell us a little more about this process. Who developed it, and why hasn't it been published?
Click to expand...

Basically, it's already published in this months Fastrack... Don't go looking for a formula, because there isn't one. If you look at the PCA proposal, it outlines the factors considered....

Essentially, we estimate the IT-prepped HP level, multiply that times a target wt/pwr ratio for the class, then make some judgement calls based on the other specifications...

WHAT the target wt/pwr ratio is really doesn't matter, because the same is used for all the cars being considered for a particular class, so it's a constant (I guess that means it could factor out of any "equation"...) The target is choosen based on analysis of the top several cars in each class...

You aren't likely to see anything really official on this published, because, quite frankly, it's a work in progress and we still have yet to see if it's a reasonable way to do things... Hopefully you can all agree that we ought to see if this is going to work before getting too carried away.

As to who developed it... well, the ITAC did, and all we are doing is using this process to come up with some recommended weights... The final stamp get's put on the by the CRB. But, so far, I hope most will agree upon careful examination, that what we've come up with so far is pretty reasonable, and hopefully in the ballpark. I think, honestly, that that is about the best you can expect without REAL dyno numbers and a very detailed analysis...

And YES, there is still subjectivity involved, but I think that, on a whole, this method will give each car a fair shake by starting from a similiar baseline. From there, there has to be the ability to make some judgement calls, because numbers alone don't tell the whole story.

So, please understand that this is NOT a formula... it's essentially a guideline, or process, or method, of getting some starting point numbers that allows us to look at the outcome and ask "is this reasonable..." (for example, in predicting output... is this <enter example car here> really capable of producting XXX output???)...

It's early, so hopefully that explains what we are trying to do to your satisfaction... Hopefully, upon examining the results thus far, you'll agree that we seem to be coming up with some reasonable numbers, or, at the very least, numbers that can be clearly explained...

The bottom line is that, as I said previously, we are trying to match the mechanical abilities of the cars as closely as possible, based on actual specifications and real-world experience. I think that's about the best we are going to be able to do. If PCAs happen, then we will have the ability to correct any mistakes we have made, but I honestly believe that they may be few. Hopefully the future proves that assumption to be correct...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 26, 2004).]
 
Darin – as for the vehicle’s years and models, yes, it definitely gets confusing. Here I am being a Honda Prelude guy and didn’t realize that the 2nd generation Honda prelude si was only made in ’86 & ’87. Most Honda people that I’ve spoken with always say ’83 – ’87 which represents the 2nd gen. preludes (just not the si models). Yes, I know it was just ignorance on my behalf but I never really looked into it / didn’t really care too much.

Getting the cars into the right class even if the weight is a bit high is still great! How much can people really complain about their car moving from a class where it was totally uncompetitive to a class where it could be competitive even if the weight is a little high? I am certainly not going to.

I do hope the ballast rules change. For those cars that believe the weight is too high (or could get it much lower), at least this way they can choose where the weight will be. My car for example is extremely front heavy! Hmmm, guess I can’t put the “factor” heavy subwoofers and bass tube back in the trunk with the 2 spare tires. (Kidding…)

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
 
Originally posted by gran racing:
I do hope the ballast rules change.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding the the Ballast rule is being considered as part of the PCA proposal. I don't have all the details, but do recall seeing something to the effect of just removing the 100lb limit... Again, don't quote me on that, because there is a lot of time between now and August, and things could change... (I know... I hate waiting too!
wink.gif
)

A lot of this is going to be up to your BoD members, so you might want to drop them a line and let them know how please you are with the recent announcements and that you hope the trend continues and encourage their support...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Sounds good.

Do they prefer e-mail or hard copies? Wouldn't imagine it matters, but just checking. (Do you have a physical address to send them off?)

The e-mail address I found is:
[email protected]

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
 
Dave, keep in mind the way the ballast rules are written, they dictate where you can put the ballast. I beleive it is on the passenger floorboard which won't help you much. If you want to balance your car better, don't ballast. Start putting stuff back into the trunk like the Spare (full-sized?), jack, trunk trim, etc.
 
Darin,

Thanks for the info. I'm curious, do the words "Miller Ratio" mean anything to you?
biggrin.gif


Seriously, if the same power factor is used for all cars in a class, why not publish it? As Kirk, I, and others have said before, someone should be able to look at a car they want to build, and have a decent idea where the weight will fall (say +/- 50#). And really, I think that's all Kirk, I, and others ever figured, was that 'the formula', would be a decent approximation, w/ a reality check at the end.

Keep up the good work!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Bill,

It's a great question. One for a 400-level Philosophy class.

The issue IMHO (not speaking for anyone else) is that when you publish a formula or a 'process', you will have everyone plugging there classified car into it and screaming bloody murder if the numbers don't work for them.

As Darin has stated, his work shows that the E36 is about 150 pounds light, and the RX-7 to be a few pounds heavy. What do you propose we do? Is it a massive recalc of everything or can we agree to use it in a new classification or reclass situation only?

While I would love to be in the know, I honestly feel it only causes bad blood - because the current group may or may not be able to defend past classifications because we wern't around then.

I know this sounds like a cop-out, but *I* feel the process has too many subjective factors for it to make anyone happy by looking at it at face-value. It ends up being an educated guess based on some numbers - there is NO way you can make it a hard and fast formula.

I know you are gonna rip me for this but it's how I really feel. If I were building a car that wasn't classed (or planning on building one), I would think that a letter to the ITAC requesting an ESTIMATE would be entertained - obviously with no guarantee it would come out that way but at least you might be in the ballpark.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Andy, I don't think it sounds like a cop-out. There are certain things that should be left up to those that are elected to that position. Otherwise why have them in that position? Should a person be able to explain the basic rationale of the decision? Yes of course. But as you've said there are subjective pieces to this equation.

I am a type of person that also really wants to know why this, why that, what are the specific reasons...so it isn't like I don't care. If there was a written mathematical formula for these decisions, I too would want to know. But there isn't.
(sp correction)
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[This message has been edited by gran racing (edited March 27, 2004).]
 
The weight addition/subtraction game is fine, if you can take weight off. My ITB Mustang is 200 pounds over weight and I have done all that is possible to get it down to weight. What am I to do if SCCA gives me a weigt break? All the talk has been about moving cars down or taking away weight is there any talk about improving car performance with either a larger carb or more compression? They spoke of a restrictor to slow some down, what about a slight performance gain.
 
Ron,

I would say those ideas are not on the horizon for IT currently. That gets us really pointed toward Production-style adjustments - and I think I can safely say that the majority is VERY against that.

If the car can't get to legal weight AND it is way outclassed, it sounds like a candidate for a re-class. Make a solid case, provide some facts and submit to the CRB.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Andy,

I'm not going to rip you a new one. On the contrary, I appreciate your position. Problems arise when you see things in FasTrack stating that the weight has been reviewed (by the ITAC), and deemed correct. Or, when weights are 'corrected'. If you can't tell me how you got to the initial point, how can you tell me that it's correct, or needed to be corrected? That's pretty much where I've been w/ this one, since day one.

And I, like others, would be willing to accept that specs are set on a car by car basis. Just get an official position to that effect published. There is part of the problem. Don't want to piss anyone off w/ a car by car determination (too open to "favors"). Also don't want to have to explain how each car got to where it's at. But, also want to make it 'seem' like it's objective, and not subjective. By not publishing anything, they can't be pinned down.

I still don't get how cars had their weights 'corrected', after they had been classified for over a year. There's no provision in the current rules for doing that. Like it or not, those are the rules that we all have to live by. But, when you get some cars 'corrected', and other cars shot down, all w/ no explanation whatsoever, it gives the appearence of something that's less than above board. I've asked that question on several occasions, and have yet to get a straight answer. How can you 'correct' a car (under today's rules), that has been classified for over a year?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Bygones Bill, bygones... let them be. A lot of sh%t was wrong before, but the ITAC and CB have brought us a brave new world of IT. In the future, a weight can be changed without hiding under the blanket statment "corrected." Times they are a-changing.

If you want to complain about stuff, you should probably look forward and through the May Fasttrak. There is a certain quote about "Considering the performance
potential of the car, it is correctly classified now." that doesn't quite sit right with me. However, I Rome wasn't built in a day - and there have been huge strives taken that we all can appreciate.
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
How can you 'correct' a car (under today's rules), that has been classified for over a year?
Click to expand...

I don't see any provision for it, currently - unless it falls under errors and ommisions. What are the most recent examples and maybe Darin and I can shed some light? I don't know of any off the top of my head.

As far as being above board, you know my stance on this. IT is so far from Production in that respect. There is no motivation for any wrong-doings. It is my FIRM and TRUE belief that these groups do what they think is best for IT. The groups in place now have seen the need for a fresh look and I feel lately from this board that the results are starting to show and are appreciated.

But lets go back to one of Kirk's issues from a year ago - PCA's is the next step - and the SCCA has to PROVE they can use them effectivly - THEN we will have turned the ship in the right direction.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top