Not a "Done Deal"

[rlward]

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.

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.
[/b]

Andy,
I did not ask for a prod-style comp adjustment. I said IF a change needs to be made, reduce the weight. 1945 pounds would be fine. I barely make weight now without ballast.
Please pardon me if I am wrong, but you certainly seem to be set in the reclassification. Are you 100% convinced the change is in the best intrest of the drivers, or is there something I am missing here? Your responses are almost defensive, and being a driver of one of the Sheby's, most offensive.

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.

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.
[/b]

Andy,
I did not ask for a prod-style comp adjustment. I said IF a change needs to be made, reduce the weight. 1945 pounds would be fine. I barely make weight now without ballast.
Please pardon me if I am wrong, but you certainly seem to be set in the reclassification. Are you 100% convinced the change is in the best intrest of the drivers, or is there something I am missing here? Your responses are almost defensive, and being a driver of one of the Sheby's, most offensive.

 

[Knestis]

...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.[/b]

Let's clarify. You don't like the process by which classification of this make/model was revisited. You have a legitimate beef, even if there's some good reasons things went down like they did. However, the "system" that determines the race weight of IT cars, at this point in time, is as transparent as anything in the world of auto racing. You could ask every member of the ITAC independently what a Hyundwoo Snuggly should weight and if you gave them all the same info, they'd come back to you within 50 pounds of one-another. And with some thinkin' you or I could discern what the factors are and figger it out for ourselves based solely on the race weights of cars run through the process, and their attributes.

What could you possible want more than that? No - you don't get to have what you want based on how impassioned your plea might be. That just doesn't work when everyone wants their own thing and the best interests of the category are served by a huge list of compromises.

...And my letter(s) will not have any statement as to "no future allowances", things constantly evolve.
[/b]

And I would expect nothing less. Your philosophy is showing and it just doesn't match the prevailing position of the category. You are NOT wrong, or evil for wanting what you want. Your expectations are just not particularly well matched to where we've managed to get the category over the last 5-7 years.

K

Edit - WAITAMINUTE - Are you seriously suggesting you can legally get that car down to 1945# with a 180# driver???

 

[rlward]

Thanks for the update Rodger. I will send in my letter as well.
[/b]

Matt,
thank you, first for the help, and second for spelling my name right.

Let's clarify. You don't like the process by which classification of this make/model was revisited. You have a legitimate beef, even if there's some good reasons things went down like they did. However, the "system" that determines the race weight of IT cars, at this point in time, is as transparent as anything in the world of auto racing. You could ask every member of the ITAC independently what a Hyudwoo Snuggly should weight and if you gave them all the same info, they'd come back to you within 50 pounds of one-another. And with some thinkin' you or I could discern what the factors are and figger it out for ourselves based solely on the race weights of cars run through the process, and their attributes.

What could you possible want more than that? No - you don't get to have what you want based on how impassioned your plea might be. That just doesn't work when everyone wants their own thing and the best interests of the category are served by a huge list of compromises.
And I would expect nothing less. Your philosophy is showing and it just doesn't match the prevailing position of the category. You are NOT wrong, or evil for wanting what you want. Your expectations are just not particularly well matched to where we've managed to get the category over the last 5-7 years.

K

Edit - WAITAMINUTE - Are you seriously suggesting you can legally get that car down to 1945# with a 180# driver???
[/b]

Let's clarify. You don't like the process by which classification of this make/model was revisited. You have a legitimate beef, even if there's some good reasons things went down like they did. However, the "system" that determines the race weight of IT cars, at this point in time, is as transparent as anything in the world of auto racing. You could ask every member of the ITAC independently what a Hyundwoo Snuggly should weight and if you gave them all the same info, they'd come back to you within 50 pounds of one-another. And with some thinkin' you or I could discern what the factors are and figger it out for ourselves based solely on the race weights of cars run through the process, and their attributes.

What could you possible want more than that? No - you don't get to have what you want based on how impassioned your plea might be. That just doesn't work when everyone wants their own thing and the best interests of the category are served by a huge list of compromises.
And I would expect nothing less. Your philosophy is showing and it just doesn't match the prevailing position of the category. You are NOT wrong, or evil for wanting what you want. Your expectations are just not particularly well matched to where we've managed to get the category over the last 5-7 years.

K

Edit - WAITAMINUTE - Are you seriously suggesting you can legally get that car down to 1945# with a 180# driver???
[/b]

No, it was tongue in cheek, I also weight more than 180. But it is easy to get to the minimum weight now leagally. I could probably reduce another 10 pounds, not me - the car, by legal means. And I don't want more than that. I would be happy if the car was left alone, in ITA. That is all I want. Why is that not best for the catagory? and are you saying the catagory has not been tweaked?
RW

 

[JoshS]

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.[/b]

Rodger,

I'm just curious -- are you already faster than your local ITB drivers, so that this challenge wouldn't exist in ITB for you?

Josh

 

[Matt Rowe]

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...[/b]

Are you missing something K?

Andy tells me the weight should be 1945, I disagree because it appears too low. That is not me asking for a break that is me trying to understand the process. Because it appears (when compared to a similar car) that it places far more emphasis on # of valves and EFI than on displacement or stock hp. I'm not asking for a comp adjustment I'm trying to understand the process because something doesn't seem right.

Also I have to assume the GTI is at the proper weight because I have no way of knowing if the ITAC decided it was right or that they did not have enough information. Given the numbers of VW's and Rabitt's out there racing over the years most would assume there is enough information to have it classed properly otherwise I start to wonder just how many cars really were reviewed. Which is the problem with not fixing every car at once. You are bound to encourage more requests to fix car X because are seeing cars moved or re-weighted. Who's to know what cars have been adjusted and which haven't?

Now if this is trully what the process predicts based on solid information or at least the normal assumptions then I'm not sure what to say. I have a hard time believing there is that much emphasis on EFI and valves and that little emphasis on displacement but so be it. I have said before that a fully built version can get down to 2250 but if the classification puts it 300 lbs below that it must be an ITB car. Of course to gain 485 lbs jumping up a class (1945 in ITA and 2430 in IT seems odd too. I don't remember the other tweener cars gaining that much but I could be wrong.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
I did not ask for a prod-style comp adjustment. I said IF a change needs to be made, reduce the weight. 1945 pounds would be fine. I barely make weight now without ballast.
Please pardon me if I am wrong, but you certainly seem to be set in the reclassification. Are you 100% convinced the change is in the best intrest of the drivers, or is there something I am missing here? Your responses are almost defensive, and being a driver of one of the Sheby's, most offensive. [/b]

Well I certainly read it that way. My apologies if you didn't mean, 'Change the weight, and change it again if you have to keep making it lighter'.

What does your car weigh? How close do you think you can come to 1945lbs? That is a car that would be 1765lbs without driver!

I am set in this classification (which doesn't mean anything really). I am trying to be true to the process, true to the category and true to both current and FUTURE Shelby drivers and drivers interested in IT and a stable and predicatble ruleset. To leave this car in ITA at a weight it can't come within 300lbs of is really just nonsense. In some small part, the integrity of the category is being challenged.

I am 100% convinced the change is in the best interest of the category. Some decisions hurt some in the short term but help in the long term. Keeping on-track with what we have been doing for the last 4 years is what will continue to keep IT strong. A deviation like this is just the wrong thing to do from a 10,000 foot level. I am sorry you feel slighted and insulted but there are just as many people insulted by your desire to deviate from the framework - for what amounts to not having to pay for new wheel (or insert 'me' reason here)

I am done with this one. Thanks to all who have PM'd me.

Edit: Matt, cars were reviewed and changes were made to those +/- 100lbs of their process weight. As has been said over and over - that was within the statistical noise of the IT framework. And remember, adders/subtractors are not universally applied across all classes. By that I mean that an adder for dispacement/torque in ITB or ITC may not apply in ITA or ITS as it may not be 'out of the ordinary' for that class. 2.2 in ITB may be big, but in ITA or ITS and especially ITR, not so much. That is why this is a 'process' and not a formula.

 

[Matt Rowe]

What does your car weigh? How close do you think you can come to 1945lbs? That is a car that would be 1765lbs without driver![/b]

Look above I have already answered that. 2250. Don't get me wrong at 1945 it would be a killer ITA car but it's not going to get there.

In some small part, the integrity of the category is being challenged.
...
I am sorry you feel slighted and insulted but there are just as many people insulted by your desire to deviate from the framework - for what amounts to not having to pay for new wheel (or insert 'me' reason here)[/b]

When have I ever asked to deviate from the process? Now that you have responded with the process dictated weight I have only asked for a better understanding of how it is applied. Furthermore I have already said that if that is what the process predicts then it clearly should be a B car as 1945 is unreasonable. I'm just unclear as to the why the disparity in predictions when compared to other examples.

And remember, adders/subtractors are not universally applied across all classes. By that I mean that an adder for dispacement/torque in ITB or ITC may not apply in ITA or ITS as it may not be 'out of the ordinary' for that class. 2.2 in ITB may be big, but in ITA or ITS and especially ITR, not so much. That is why this is a 'process' and not a formula.
[/b]

I understand it's a process I am a big fan of the process and have always and will continue to support it. What I am trying to understand is a comparison between weights for two cars within the same class, ITA.

So although you may be done with this you still haven't really answered why the huge disparity between the GTI and the Shelby, both within ITA. Both with similar characteristics aside from what I already pointed out. It appears the GTI is appropriately classed (no need to perform a "comp adjustment") yet the Shelby would be 275 lb's lighter. The adders shouldn't be different due to class changes, only the effects of displacement, EFI, and valves. So what am I missing?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Matt, you have to notice my response was not to you, just the Edit.

The 16V GTI at 2220 in ITA is a 123hp car. 13 stock hp in ITA is worth about 235lbs.

What class do you think it belongs in?

 

[Knestis]

Someone please run the back-of-napkin numbers on the GTI 1.8 16v - 123hp, 120ft-lb, struts, and the same chassis and brakes as an ITB MkII Golf. Maybe Jake will because Andy's had the good sense to go clean his attic or something.

My guess - without even getting out a calculator - is 2375. The only reasons nobody has much cared is that (1) none of the real-life examples out there are actually at 2200, and (2) nobody's built a full-tilt version of the car to scare the competition into squawking about it.

K

EDIT - Andy isn't as sensible as I thought. Am I to infer from your post that the process weight for the GTI 16v is ACTUALLY 2200??

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Someone please run the back-of-napkin numbers on the GTI 1.8 16v - 123hp, 120ft-lb, struts, and the same chassis and brakes as an ITB MkII Golf. Maybe Jake will because Andy's had the good sense to go clean his attic or something.

My guess - without even getting out a calculator - is 2375. The only reasons nobody has much cared is that (1) none of the real-life examples out there are actually at 2200, and (2) nobody's built a full-tilt version of the car to scare the competition into squawking about it.

K [/b]

Back of the napkin shows a quick 2230 - 50 for FWD. 2180lbs. 2220 in the GCR now. Build it VW guys.

We are talking about the 1.8, not the 2.0 at 2475.

 

[Knestis]

Day-um.

Someone's glad Andy is doing the math rather than me.

There's tracks where that would be a great combination, methinks.

Never mind.

K

 

[Matt Rowe]

Hey Matt, you have to notice my response was not to you, just the Edit.

The 16V GTI at 2220 in ITA is a 123hp car. 13 stock hp in ITA is worth about 235lbs.

What class do you think it belongs in?
[/b]

Unfortunately that's not how I read it. Sorry if I misunderstood the scope of the "you" in your previous comments.

Anyway, I give up. For some reason I was using a lower HP number for the GTI which skewed the estimate I had. Despite my own personal preference I have to agree that based on the math it looks like an ITB. If it does fit it's better for the long term future of the car and may even help numbers in the "dying" ITB class. Thanks for clarifying how you got to that point. I sincerely appreciate that there are members of the ITAC willing to explain the basis for the decisions instead of dismissing questions with trite responses.

 

[rlward]

Rodger,

I'm just curious -- are you already faster than your local ITB drivers, so that this challenge wouldn't exist in ITB for you?

Josh
[/b]

Not All, some, but not all. faster than some ITA cars also, not all ,but some. This is in a car that was mothballed for 6 years. I changed fluids, bought new tires and went racing. The point I have always been trying to make is, leave the car alone. IF and that is IF the board wants to do anything to help the driver of the shelby be more competitive, reduce the minimum weight. the added weight specified in the reclassification is in the wrong place. If that information had been available at the begining of the season, there would be enough time to plan and re-purchase a lot of interior pieces that added weight in the right place before the start of the new season.

I didn't buy an ITB car because I wanted to race in ITA. The Shelby was interesting. not a lot of sources, not a lot of other Shelby's, heck I honestly thought I was the only Shelby Racer until just a few weeks ago when I learned of this site. I have been curious as to why we are on this site instead of the SCCA site.

 

[mustanghammer]

Ditto:

***********************

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

****************************

 

[dickita15]

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
[/b]

I totally understand that that is an unattainable weight and from a purely practical perspective it may defy logic, but what is our goal here.
I would say the rule one is to protect the process and to insure that no violation of the process does harm to the racers who rely on the rules process for fair competition.
My second goal would be attempt to allow members to do what they want as long as it is safe and does not violate rule one.
If we can satisfy a larger group of customers without no any harm whatsoever to the integrity of the process or the rest of our customers why would we not? Is the burden of having to print a few more spec lines in a book that is over 500 pages really that bad?
Let’s say there are 12 guys out there racing these cars now in ITA. What would happen if the Shelby was Dual Classified in A and B. my WAG is 4 would immediately move their cars to ITB where the car is a better fit and eventually another 4 would look around and see how much fun they are having and find some wheels to make the move. Maybe 4 would stay in ITA and enjoy their decision. I see this as good for ITB and doing no harm to ITA.

 

[rlward]

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.

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.
[/b]

Andy -
Where are the posts from Mr. Hoffman regarding his position on this issue? Is he taking advantage of the rules or does he have a fairly stock car? Is he a new driver? Does he just want to run in ITB? I just don't get it. Does the process mean if I am uncompetitive in ITB too all I have to do is write a letter and be asked to be reclassified to ITC? What happens if now, the Shelby's start winning all the ITB events? will there be a Competition adjustment? And most of all, I have only asked the car be left in ITA (i don't know how you read anything else in my posts or even if you read my letter to the board), nothing else...are you saying that regardless of letters from those affected (Shelby Drivers), the car WILL GO to ITB? If so, let me outta here, I thought this was a better organization than that. Also, tell mr. Hoffman to contact me. If he really wants to race in ITB I will buy his car so that he can buy an ITB car.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Someone help me please. I can't type stuff over and over.

:Tired:

 

[rlward]

Someone help me please. I can't type stuff over and over.

:Tired:
[/b]

I am tired too, but I don't give up, not here, not on the track! you have no stamina....you still have offered no real response to my quiery....I'll admit I don't know how to run the back of the napkin stuff. I do know my car is competitive in ITA and I don't want to change classes. Just because 1 driver is whining and you (heck WHO ARE YOU? are you the comp board? I'm too new at this to have identified all the players) happen to run the numbers and agree doen't make it justified.

 

[Jeremy Billiel]

I have read this entire thread and I just don't get it....

Everyone wants a clear process that is transparent. We now have that.

The shelby was re-run through the process and with the new (correct) data it is a ITB car.

How can one bitch about this? Who the F cares about having to buy new rims? That is chump change in this world that we play in. If the car belongs in ITB, it belongs in ITB, where it looks like it can be very competitive.

END OF STORY IMO

I know that is harsh, but this is what everyone wanted and IT is better for this. Thank you ITAC.

 

[Knestis]

Rodger - Andy is on the Improved Touring Ad Hoc Committee (ITAC), as is Jake Gulick who also posts here and a couple of other occasional visitors. The ITAC is charged with reviewing IT rules requests and making recommendations to the Comp Board, where IT issues are concerned.

With respect - there are a LOT of things about the current process, the history, and the players that you haven't learned yet. You are asking for things - both in terms of organizational procedures and the technical practices currently applied to classing - that are simply not in line with how things currently work.

SCCA is not being unfair or unresponsive if they don't do what one individual wants.

K