Not a "Done Deal"

... 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. ...[/b]
Click to expand...
As always, Dick you make a compelling case but I still have fundamental concerns in terms of the cohesion of the category, and of the classes within it.

There are always shades of gray, so let's look at one that's closer to the extreme end of your scale - we'll call it "white," where everyone gets to do quite literally everything they want. We'll call Kirk's end "black" (as in evil), where rules Dementors like me suck all of the joy out of racing. :)

What's the analog to your suggestion that people be allowed to keep their Shelbys in A, at whatever minimum weight they can possibly attain (as long as it's above 1945, of course), in the cases where ITA cars got more weight added to them, also based on the process? Those guys were plenty unhappy about the situation, as I recall.

"Please let me run at my old weight for no points or trophies" - OK or not OK?

"I'll run on 6" wheels, if I can keep my old weight" - OK or not OK?

"Make all of the other cars lighter" (a real suggestion as I recall) - OK or not OK?

Etc.

They simply got told to bolt in some weight and quite whining - OK or not OK?

I'm not trying to argue sense with the absurd - really. I just find that it's easier to parse out issues and solutions sometimes if I look at examples out toward the ends of the curve. The limits to what's OK are always arbitrary to some degree, so the question becomes one of what we are collectively comfortable with. And there are ALWAYS costs due to outcomes of taking a new location along the black-white continuum. Heck - there are costs associated change, in and of itself.

Further, we don't even KNOW what the costs will be sometimes.

So, I'm convinced that the dual classification option *might* be a good way to deal with some really special cases, where the benefits outweigh the costs. (And equally convinced that the language of that allowance would have to be VERY carefully crafted.) I'm just not loving the cost/benefit math of going whole-hog with the idea, applying it to every car in every class.

K
 
Some other questions...

If the Shelby Charger is moved to ITB, does the Omni GLH automatically get moved as well (same engine, same suspension, both "L" bodies in Chrysler parlance) or does it stay in ITA pending a review request from a member?

Second, does the 2.5 Daytona really belong in ITA? I don't have the numbers handy, but I think it is only about 100 hp stock (130 lbs/ft of torque) in a fairly heavy car. If that car was run through the process would it also be a candidate to be moved to ITB?

Third, how do I submit a request to have my ITB 2.2 Daytona run through the process? I really think that if it was run through the process it would come out lighter than its current 2630 lbs. (99 hp stock/fwd/struts).

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Daytona
 
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?[/b]
Click to expand...

The process being used doesn’t take into consideration on track race results. If the Shelby starts winning all of the ITB events, we’ll just see more people building Shelbys.

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.[/b]
Click to expand...

For some people, it isn’t about changing the rim size. In the NER, ITB is quite large and we’re actually seeing it grow more. :D In other areas of the country, it isn’t as strong. Jeremy, here’s an example: if my ITB car was being reclassed to ITC even if it fit, I’d be upset because the change took me out of large fields and put the car into a very small field of cars racing (at least in our area).

Another issue people have is that they’ve formed rivalries with people in ITA and don’t want to lose that. Sure, they’ll form new ones but that’s not what they care about now. I’ll admit that I miss some of the battles I had with a certain ITA driver in addition to a couple of others and have yet to form the same in ITB. In my case, having a car that could potentially be competitive was important to me and was willing to make the sacrifice – others are not.

It is also tough to tell Mr. Hoffman that the ITAC reviewed the Shelby and it fits perfectly within ITB, but we’re still gonna keep it in ITA. In any case, not everyone will be satisfied utilizing our current tools. I’m still not totally sold on a full dual classification approach, but maybe it could be used as a transition period for cars being changed to a different class for a definitive amount of time? In this case the Shelby would be classed in both ITA & ITB for a period of three years, after which time it would strictly be in ITB.
 
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?
[/b]
Click to expand...
First, reread the thread, as I can remember many if not all of these questions being adressed.
The ITAc has gotten several, IIRC letters on this, and took a close look at the car, with research that time didn't allow earlier. Some things take longer, plain and simple. It was felt that the numbers that came from the research placed the car in ITA at the weight listed above, or in ITB at a heavier weight.

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? [/b]
Click to expand...

No, the move wasn't made because the ITAC felt the car was uncompetitive, the move was made because the numbers showed it could not be competitive in ITA, except at a ridiculous weight.

What happens if now, the Shelby's start winning all the ITB events? will there be a Competition adjustment?[/b]
Click to expand...

No. Good for them. Unless there is new information that shows beond the shadow of a doubt that the research has provided the wrong answer...and we aren't talking about one guy winning at Shely Motorsports Park, the car stays where it is.



...... I'm still not totally sold on a full dual classification approach, but maybe it could be used as a transition period for cars being changed to a different class for a definitive amount of time? In this case the Shelby would be classed in both ITA & ITB for a period of three years, after which time it would strictly be in ITB.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Hmmm....that's not a bad idea...
 
.......... do know my car is competitive in ITA and I don't want to change classes. . [/b]
Click to expand...

I apologise in advance for what I'm about to write.... it might sound harsh, but it's the truth..

You're in Prather California, and from my limited observations on trips west and visits to races, ITA isn't the same class it is in other parts of the country. Bring that car east to run some ITA races, and you'll be lucky to see the lead pack for a lap. Honestly, the cars are pretty darn quick. I think that you are deciding that your world is representative of the country at large and it simply isn't. And the ITAC needs to concern itself with the big picture. IF your car can be competitive with a Moser driven CRX, then my hats off to you, and we have a serious screw up. (But we'll have serious reservations about "How" you got so fast...;) )
 
...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.[/b]
Click to expand...
This site LOOONG pre-dates anything SCCA's done. Way long. As in I think I joined with my first identity ('grega") in 2001 or something like that; I was user #180-something...

So, this is our "home", and probably always will be (unless "Webmaster" gets bored with it).

... do know my car is competitive in ITA and I don't want to change classes.[/b]
Click to expand...
As someone who (currently, but possibly not for long!) is the reigning ITA ARRC champion, and someone that built probably the very first ITA Shelby Charger (way back in 1987), I can say with confidence you're mistaken. Ain't sayin' you can't have fun with it in ITA, but ain't no way it'll win against the pointy-end ITA competition (for reference, my car puts 150+ hp to the ground...)

If I were you, I'd be taking that ITB gift with a big smile; that torquey 2.2 engine should rock there. - GA
 
As always, Dick you make a compelling case but I still have fundamental concerns in terms of the cohesion of the category, and of the classes within it.

There are always shades of gray, so let's look at one that's closer to the extreme end of your scale - we'll call it "white," where everyone gets to do quite literally everything they want. We'll call Kirk's end "black" (as in evil), where rules Dementors like me suck all of the joy out of racing. :)

What's the analog to your suggestion that people be allowed to keep their Shelbys in A, at whatever minimum weight they can possibly attain (as long as it's above 1945, of course), in the cases where ITA cars got more weight added to them, also based on the process? Those guys were plenty unhappy about the situation, as I recall.

"Please let me run at my old weight for no points or trophies" - OK or not OK?

"I'll run on 6" wheels, if I can keep my old weight" - OK or not OK?

"Make all of the other cars lighter" (a real suggestion as I recall) - OK or not OK?

Etc.

They simply got told to bolt in some weight and quite whining - OK or not OK?

I'm not trying to argue sense with the absurd - really. I just find that it's easier to parse out issues and solutions sometimes if I look at examples out toward the ends of the curve. The limits to what's OK are always arbitrary to some degree, so the question becomes one of what we are collectively comfortable with. And there are ALWAYS costs due to outcomes of taking a new location along the black-white continuum. Heck - there are costs associated change, in and of itself.

Further, we don't even KNOW what the costs will be sometimes.

So, I'm convinced that the dual classification option *might* be a good way to deal with some really special cases, where the benefits outweigh the costs. (And equally convinced that the language of that allowance would have to be VERY carefully crafted.) I'm just not loving the cost/benefit math of going whole-hog with the idea, applying it to every car in every class.

K
[/b]
Click to expand...

Kirk, in my world of black and white those answers are easy for me. Can I allow this without violating rule one?
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.
You have to run IT with a car that meets the rules defined by the process, it is not ok to run a nonconforming cars.
I do not believe in spec line rules exceptions. The Olds has been thrown in our face over and over and that mistake was something like 15 years ago, so no, no wheel size exceptions.
The Shelby can be listed in two classes without harming the process or being unfair to any other competitors. Give that why should the powers that be force these guys to change if they do not want to. I just don’t see the upside.
 
.02 from a newb

I'm still wet behind the ears, so I read as much as I can and say as little as I can. But I have a suggestion that may solve this issue.

First off I want to commend Andy for being a stand up guy and taking on all of this abuse. Andy, you must have pulled all of your hair out years ago. On one hand you have MR2 owners (me included) wanting to move to ITB because we cant get any closer than 80 pound of min. weight, on the other hand, you have Shelby drivers wanting to stay in ITA even though they can not get within 300 pounds of min. weight.

Would it make sense to grandfather in a class change? This wouldn't seem feasible if a car were moving UP in a class (ITB => ITA), but it doesn't seem that this is the direction most moves occur. Couldn't a car be moved from ITA => ITB and any car/driver combo could have the option of remaining in ITA under a grandfather clause? Once the car is sold or the driver retires, the car would have to go to ITB.

The only negative impact on a car owner that would remain is that once that car were sold, the rims may need replaced and therefore lower the resale value of the car. But it would seem to me as an improvement over a say 3 year dual classification period where at the end of 3 years a driver still gets punted to another class.
 
I apologise in advance for what I'm about to write.... it might sound harsh, but it's the truth..

You're in Prather California, and from my limited observations on trips west and visits to races, ITA isn't the same class it is in other parts of the country. Bring that car east to run some ITA races, and you'll be lucky to see the lead pack for a lap. Honestly, the cars are pretty darn quick. I think that you are deciding that your world is representative of the country at large and it simply isn't. And the ITAC needs to concern itself with the big picture. IF your car can be competitive with a Moser driven CRX, then my hats off to you, and we have a serious screw up. (But we'll have serious reservations about "How" you got so fast...;) )
[/b]
Click to expand...
You, may be correct about east vs west. but it is a regional only class. I may never race in the east. This change, in my opinion, should have been effective in 2009 at least. But I still want to be left in ITA. I know, stugbborn.
RW
 
Great quotes!
Does this mean you agree that Mr Hoffmans request (one) should not outweight the request of all others (at least 2) and leave it in ITA?
 
Rodger gets the "twist and shout" award for this afternoon. :lol:

...or put differently, "no."

The needs of the category, as enacted by the reasonably transparent classification/specification process currently in place, outweigh the wishes of even three individuals.

K
 
Kirk is right in my opinion Rodger. The car as the facts are laid out is a B car. It is good for IT for the car to be in B. In case you did not notice I trust the process. :)

The question I have been trying to persuade Kirk and others is that with a dual classification approach maybe we can satisfy both side while still protecting the integrity of the classification process and let the free market decide.
 
Actually, all the discussion has been enlightning as I can see that the re-class to ITB could be a good thing, and I think it will happen eventually. Dual Classification for a period of time might be a good thing when cars are re-classified as I still have windmills in ITA to conquer.

In the case of any reclassification though, I believe there will be too little notice to properly prepare any car for the following season in the new class. If, any reclassification move is made by the board, the transition period or effective date, or time period for dual classification should be at least one full season after the decision is approved. Remember the board will not even vote on the reclassification until December.
Here are the possibilities as I see them:
1. The board approves the reclassification in december, the final decision is posted around the end of the month, we have already spent all the time and effort to prepare for the class change, ready for the first race Jan 15, 2008 and all is fine.
2. The board does not approve the reclassificaton in December, the final decision is posted around the end of the month, we have already spent all the time and money to prepare for the class change, ready for the first race Jan 15, 2008 and all is havoc.

I thnk that changes in professional racing, for the most part, are geared to allow Owners time to re-adjust their program. We, on the other hand will not have that opportunity in this particular case because of the timing of the final vote and the start of the season.

Is this something everybody including the board could live with?

RW

Matt, K, Racer Bill, and all others, thank you for your time and thoughts.
All Shelby drivers out there I welcome direct email to share or preparation processes and network information and sources.
 
I think you have a GREAT point, re: timelines that get created for racers by these changes. Procedurally, I'd be fine with longer lead times but again, there's probably some out there who really want them to happen RIGHT NOW, once the decision gets made.

CONCEPTUALLY (and very hesitantly), I might be convinced of the value of a transitional dual classification, applied ONLY to cars that get relisted. It would need to be clearly spelled out how long, etc. but it is an interesting solution. I'd be very bothered by the idea of grandfathering individual drivers/cars into the class they are leaving, as has been previously mentioned, for the simple reason that it would be hell to enforce. Somewhere between these two options would be grandfathering the entire make/model - permanent dual classification: Bigger downside potential, in fact too big I think.

I'm just one guy though, with no official capacity in the process. What the Board will go for, I have no idea.

K
 
I think you have a GREAT point, re: timelines that get created for racers by these changes. Procedurally, I'd be fine with longer lead times but again, there's probably some out there who really want them to happen RIGHT NOW, once the decision gets made.

CONCEPTUALLY (and very hesitantly), I might be convinced of the value of a transitional dual classification, applied ONLY to cars that get relisted. It would need to be clearly spelled out how long, etc. but it is an interesting solution. I'd be very bothered by the idea of grandfathering individual drivers/cars into the class they are leaving, as has been previously mentioned, for the simple reason that it would be hell to enforce. Somewhere between these two options would be grandfathering the entire make/model - permanent dual classification: Bigger downside potential, in fact too big I think.

I'm just one guy though, with no official capacity in the process. What the Board will go for, I have no idea.

K
[/b]
Click to expand...
But you do have an official capacity in the process if you just write the board and affer your opinion on this concept. Maybe it will allow the change immediately to those that want, but give us that have't even thought about how to re-enginer time to think and plan. Thanks,
RW
 
I would expect this to get done for 1-1-08 as the FastTrack says. No weight increase, just wheels to be legal. You can have those in 2 weeks if you are really in a pinch.

Rodger - how many races did you run this year?
 
I would expect this to get done for 1-1-08 as the FastTrack says. No weight increase, just wheels to be legal. You can have those in 2 weeks if you are really in a pinch.

Rodger - how many races did you run this year?
[/b]
Click to expand...
none, the car was dissassembled in january, I started it for the first time last Sunday. I ran almost every race in 06, missing the season opener in Fontana and the last race in october at BW. The cam foller exploded during a chase, I do mean a close one with a miata.
My car in now well prepared with ground control, adj koni's, weber, headers, MSD ign and advance computer, custom cam, professionally built engine, there is not an area of the car that has not been gone over. I really wanted that damn miata behind me!

Did I understand the weight will not increase?
RW
 
My car in now well prepared with ground control, adj koni's, weber, headers, MSD ign and advance computer, custom cam, professionally built engine, there is not an area of the car that has not been gone over. I really wanted that damn miata behind me!

[/b]
Click to expand...

I didn't know IT allowed custom cams?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top