Not a "Done Deal"

R

rlward

New member
Ok, guys... from the desk of John Bauer, "It is not a done deal. The Board of Directors will vote on the reclassification in December. I am sorry you did not get a response to yur letter. In the future, keep sending it until you do. The fastrack is the official notification system."

So, Racer Bill, and the other Shelby drivers out there, please write the letters.

I have written 2, and will write every week to keep the Shelby in ITA. I will also suggest again, if the car requires tweaking, adjust the weight down, but keep it in ITA.

Rodger Ward
84 Shelby, CalClub
#18
 
Guys, this car WILL NOT get comp adjustments in ITA to 'keep it competitive'. The process puts it in ITB and it puts it smack dab in the core of ITB. That is the bottom line.
 
Because the car currently carries significant ballast and can still run mid pack. If I wanted to run ITB I would have built an ITB Charger.I want to run with ITA and if the weight was adjusted accordingly I think the car would stand a chance against all but the best of ITA. You know it would be competitive with 90% of the cars already classed in ITA that don't stand a chance against a well prepped Miata, Integra, CRX or 240.

Oh and Andy, I appreciate your honesty but you can't (and shouldn't) prevent us for expressing our opinions on what we would like. It may be shouting into the wind but it is still our right to do so, isn't it?

Also isn't the classification process supposed to start at the highest level, determine what the minimum weight would be, make an educated guess of if the car can reach that and if not move down a class and repeat. So what's the minimum weight the car would have to make to stay in ITA?
 
Because the car currently carries significant ballast and can still run mid pack. If I wanted to run ITB I would have built an ITB Charger.I want to run with ITA and if the weight was adjusted accordingly I think the car would stand a chance against all but the best of ITA. You know it would be competitive with 90% of the cars already classed in ITA that don't stand a chance against a well prepped Miata, Integra, CRX or 240.

Oh and Andy, I appreciate your honesty but you can't (and shouldn't) prevent us for expressing our opinions on what we would like. It may be shouting into the wind but it is still our right to do so, isn't it?

Also isn't the classification process supposed to start at the highest level, determine what the minimum weight would be, make an educated guess of if the car can reach that and if not move down a class and repeat. So what's the minimum weight the car would have to make to stay in ITA?
[/b]
Click to expand...

:023:

Raymond "Some people really just do want to have fun and not win!!!" Blethen
 
Knock yourselves out, guys. It's just a shame that we finally have a system in place and people don't recognize how important that is. Make sure that you explain in your letters that you understand that there will be no future allowances made to improve competitiveness of this model in A.

K
 
Where is the lack of recognition? No one is asking for a comp adjustment now or in the future. What I did ask for is what the spec weight in ITA would be for the car based on the process. Class it at that weight in ITA and be done with it, or at least that is what my letter will say.
 
Where is the lack of recognition? No one is asking for a comp adjustment now or in the future. What I did ask for is what the spec weight in ITA would be for the car based on the process. Class it at that weight in ITA and be done with it, or at least that is what my letter will say. [/b]
Click to expand...

Sorry Matt, you aren't reading the posts well enough. Roger's initial post asks for Prod-style comp adjustments.

I will also suggest again, if the car requires tweaking, adjust the weight down, but keep it in ITA.[/b]
Click to expand...

I can assure you, this will never happen in IT under my watch. NEVER.

And please, I never prevented anyone from expressing an opinion, I simply stated that what Roger suggested won't happen. Request all you want - but it will be a waste of time. Harsh? Maybe but it is what it is.

As far as the weight in ITA - you asked for it. How about 1945lbs? Can you get there? I don't think so. The original request came in from a Mr. Hoffman in March to have it reclassed to ITB. You have the structure and timelines correct, you just don't like the result. It's a B car.
 
Yup-
As Andy points out, we spent some time researching this car. It's a pretty large engine, and yet it's pretty weak. It's specific output should be higher. Thats a red flag. Sometimes, (often) cars are strangled by a certain item that gets changed in IT prep.

We researched.
We ran it through the process
And the weight.
And we researched.....

Finally, after we finished our due diligence, we came to the conclusion you read. ITB.

What I hear is conflicting...
"Just throw us a bone, look at the times, we could be competitive with an adjustment"
"Fix the weight"
"Let us stay in ITA, really, the car could be fast enough to have fun in.."
"I don't care about being fast, I like running with my friends"
"I just bought wheels, why didn't this happen two years ago??"

Lets have a poll on how long it will take to get the first "I can't get my car that light, what were you idiots thinking??" letter...;)
 
And this is exactly why I have become to believe that Dual Classification is the way to promote fair racing a still satisfy the largest number of racers.
We are a participant driven sport. We do not class cars based on spectator interest or manufacturer influence because frankly neither of those groups care that much. We class cars based on what the individual wants to race balanced against the rights of the rest of the racers in that class.
From the discussion on these threads the Shelby move to ITB is totally logical. The numbers are right and it fits the process perfectly and yet much to the surprise of the green visor wearing number crunchers of the ITAC there are those who own the cars that are unhappy.
Reasons for not wanting to move down a class don’t have to be rational to everyone. Reasons like I don’t want to slow my car down, the change will cost me money or the B guys are a bunch of …(insert offensive statement here) may not be rational to all, but the reasons we race or race a particular car are not always rational.
If you trust the process we now use for classifying cars than why not satisfy the largest number of racers.

Trust the process, dual classify the car.
 
Here is my next stupid question. Let's say it get changed to ITB. If you are not running for points, is there anything in the GCR that states that you can not continue to run in ITA in current trim?
 
...is there anything in the GCR that states that you can not continue to run in ITA in current trim?[/b]
Click to expand...
Yes.

1) If it doesn't say you can, you can't; and
2) Vehicles are specifically listed in the ITCS by class.
 
And this is exactly why I have become to believe that Dual Classification is the way to promote fair racing a still satisfy the largest number of racers.
We are a participant driven sport. We do not class cars based on spectator interest or manufacturer influence because frankly neither of those groups care that much. We class cars based on what the individual wants to race balanced against the rights of the rest of the racers in that class.
From the discussion on these threads the Shelby move to ITB is totally logical. The numbers are right and it fits the process perfectly and yet much to the surprise of the green visor wearing number crunchers of the ITAC there are those who own the cars that are unhappy.
Reasons for not wanting to move down a class don’t have to be rational to everyone. Reasons like I don’t want to slow my car down, the change will cost me money or the B guys are a bunch of …(insert offensive statement here) may not be rational to all, but the reasons we race or race a particular car are not always rational.
If you trust the process we now use for classifying cars than why not satisfy the largest number of racers.

Trust the process, dual classify the car.
[/b]
Click to expand...

:023:

Raymond
 
And this is exactly why I have become to believe that Dual Classification is the way to promote fair racing a still satisfy the largest number of racers.
We are a participant driven sport. We do not class cars based on spectator interest or manufacturer influence because frankly neither of those groups care that much. We class cars based on what the individual wants to race balanced against the rights of the rest of the racers in that class.
From the discussion on these threads the Shelby move to ITB is totally logical. The numbers are right and it fits the process perfectly and yet much to the surprise of the green visor wearing number crunchers of the ITAC there are those who own the cars that are unhappy.
Reasons for not wanting to move down a class don't have to be rational to everyone. Reasons like I don't want to slow my car down, the change will cost me money or the B guys are a bunch of …(insert offensive statement here) may not be rational to all, but the reasons we race or race a particular car are not always rational.
If you trust the process we now use for classifying cars than why not satisfy the largest number of racers.

Trust the process, dual classify the car.
[/b]
Click to expand...

While I like some aspects of the Dual Classification Philosophy (Tweeners), this is NOT one of those situations. Frankly, it exemplifies why it is probably a bad idea to adopt a DCP. This car is not a tweener. It is an ITB car. Now we have members who 'just want to stay in ITA' for a variety of reasons. For some it will be wheels. For some its the guys they run against. For some it's the run group. No matter what the reason, it's not appropriate to DC this car and not EVERYONE ELSE. Hell, I would double-dip in ITS almost every race if I could under this philosophy. You just tripled the size of the classification listsings (core class plus one up and one down).

So to satisfy the largets number of racers, I submit we class cars where they should be - ONCE. Then there are no "PCB's"...(post classification bitching). You get what you get. It's Improved Touring, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Sorry Matt, you aren't reading the posts well enough. Roger's initial post asks for Prod-style comp adjustments.
I can assure you, this will never happen in IT under my watch. NEVER.[/b]
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that isn't how I read it. I read it as he isa sking the car be run through the process and the weight adjusted if shown that it does not currently meet the spec. I wouldn't support anything else and you should know that by now.

And please, I never prevented anyone from expressing an opinion, I simply stated that what Roger suggested won't happen. Request all you want - but it will be a waste of time. Harsh? Maybe but it is what it is.[/b]
Click to expand...
No, you didn't come right out and say not to send in something, just that it is a waste of time. That is a piss poor message to send to members. I'm on a committee too and know exactly how little feedback is received and that there is no excuse for discouraging someone from sending in a letter. None! Try re-reading your own responses and ask yourself how open to member input your come across.

As far as the weight in ITA - you asked for it. How about 1945lbs? Can you get there? I don't think so. The original request came in from a Mr. Hoffman in March to have it reclassed to ITB. You have the structure and timelines correct, you just don't like the result. It's a B car.
[/b]
Click to expand...
1945 but you didn't feel the need to fix this when the classes were all reviewed and re-aligned? 20% out of alignment with active racers out there? What did it take for a car to stand out enough?

It's not so much that I don't like that weight as it doesn't seem to align with reality. As a comparison the 16V GTI runs at 2220. It gives up .4 l of displacement but benefits from EFI and 8 extra valves. Suspension between the two are a wash although the GTI is top heavy and a bigger sail at high speed than the Shelby. So basically it appears that the EFI and 16 valves not only make up for the displacement difference but also make almost a 300 lb difference? Something doesn't seem right there?
 
While I like some aspects of the Dual Classification Philosophy (Tweeners), this is NOT one of those situations. Frankly, it exemplifies why it is probably a bad idea to adopt a DCP. This car is not a tweener. It is an ITB car. Now we have members who 'just want to stay in ITA' for a variety of reasons. For some it will be wheels. For some its the guys they run against. For some it's the run group. No matter what the reason, it's not appropriate to DC this car and not EVERYONE ELSE. Hell, I would double-dip in ITS almost every race if I could under this philosophy. You just tripled the size of the classification listsings (core class plus one up and one down).

So to satisfy the largets number of racers, I submit we class cars where they should be - ONCE. Then there are no "PCB's"...(post classification bitching). You get what you get. It's Improved Touring, nothing more, nothing less.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Andy, would this reaction be because of your surprise and frustration as a green visor wearing number cruncher of the ITAC. :D
 
Matt & Roger... Why would you want to stay in ITA?

Raymond
[/b]
Click to expand...
Raymond-
Cause I still feel I can win at least one race. The race is the important part of the process of being a better driver. The challenge is important. It is not all about how many wins I can have in a class, but how hard it was to win, or even place. If I was in this just to win, I would study all the calsses, all the cars, and pick the class with the least amount of entrants and spend the most amount of $ on the highest potential car available. I am sorry, but that just seems too easy...might as well stay home and watch TV.

Knock yourselves out, guys. It's just a shame that we finally have a system in place and people don't recognize how important that is. Make sure that you explain in your letters that you understand that there will be no future allowances made to improve competitiveness of this model in A.

K
[/b]
Click to expand...

I don't think you realize how important it is to the drivers affected that we have a say in the process, and that the board does not act based on the imput of just one driver that expresses his situation. The fact remains the SYSTEM was not transparent, letters written were not answered, and considering how much time and space has been devoted to this one issue on reclassification, the SYSTEM is still not perfect. That is ok, it should get better. Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the time and effort the board spends on these issues. I feel like my imput was not as important as some responses class my car as, "110hp, struts, FWD...come on!"
And my letter(s) will not have any statement as to "no future allowances", things constantly evolve.
 
...It's not so much that I don't like that weight as it doesn't seem to align with reality. As a comparison the 16V GTI runs at 2220. It gives up .4 l of displacement but benefits from EFI and 8 extra valves. Suspension between the two are a wash although the GTI is top heavy and a bigger sail at high speed than the Shelby. So basically it appears that the EFI and 16 valves not only make up for the displacement difference but also make almost a 300 lb difference? Something doesn't seem right there?[/b]
Click to expand...
That's competition adjustment talk (bleah), right there. You want a break based on direct comparisons with some other car in the class. You are making a case for running the GTI back through the process, remembering that its weight is a artifact of the old way of doing business. At least I think it is...

Trust the process, dual classify the car.[/b]
Click to expand...
I'm totally with you, Dick - right up to the point where the process said, "1945 pounds." That's completely unreachable so it make exactly zero sense to even go to the trouble to put it in the book.

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top