lateapex911
Super Moderator
Dan, (everyone else skip this, it's old news to you, LOL!)
The cliff note version: years ago cars were classed without a process/structure. Curb weight, how people think the car did in SS, and other nebulous factors were used, resulting in some classifications that didn't jive. Post classification rules changes benefited some cars more than others. Some of us used the net to discuss that here on this site, about 6+ years ago. Eventually, we had a mass of direction/interest and many of us wound up on the ITAC, the govering committee of IT.
A Process was created, and there was "the Great Realignment" (tGR) about 5 years ago. tGR affected 20 or so 'worse case offenders' and moved them into line with a structure that had as it's foundation, performance targets for each class. The Process used a formula of sorts, with adders for a cars physical elements to predict performance and align it with the performance target for the class. Essentially it uses stock HP as a starting point as discussion and analysis revealed that it was the best predictor of IT power. Different engines get different factors, then the other modifications are made for suspension, etc. Weight is the operative unit.
For 5 years, we adjusted cars on a case by case basis, usually baed on member requests. "Please review XYZ, it doesn't seem to jive with other cars in the class" is the typical request. As time passed, the Process was sharpened, and loose ends were attended to. This summer we rolled out "V.2.0", which removed areas where repeatability wasn't great, added evidentiary standards and buttoned things down generarlly. Like V.1.0 it's goal was to answer the members desires for repeatability, transparncy and fairness. The differences in terms of the weight the process spit out were nil for a median ITB, or ITA car. FWD adder was adjusted in the highest class, IIRC. Other than that, it was a buttoned up version of what we'd been doing for 5 years.
Through this period, the CRB (our immediate bosses, they answer to the BoD, and the BoD answers to you) was complicit and supportive of our actions. This past summer though, they objected to a number of recommendations we made, and held them in limbo, unknown to us. Eventually it was learned that they were at odds with the recommendations, and indeed, our methods. This was a 180 degree shift in the situation. Then they told us we could no longer adjust cars....at all. We then drafted responses to be published in Fastrack for all the requests/cars that we'd recommended already (some were on the books for more than 9 months by now) stating that we "Don't adjust cars". That never made the publication, and the CRB reversed the position, and we did the adjustments over again.
Some stuck, and have been published. Others have been rejected. Others have been sent back to the ITAC and we have been given options "X class or nothing, instead of Y class". And still others have been processed, but the weights the Process produced, and the ITAC recommended (to keep everything in line, consistent and balanced) have been changed by the CRB to weights they think are better.
The CRB stated, on the last con call, theat, essentially they absolutely do not support the core of the Process, which is stock HP. They feel displacement is a factor that must be considered more extensively. When making a recommendation for a cars weight, they instructed the ITAC to "Make it make sense" when compared to other similar cars. For example, a recommendation for a 2.0L car should "line up with" other 2.0L cars already listed.
The ITAC feels that a 2.0L car that has 120hp stock will not compete well with a 2.0L car with 140hp stock, all other things being equal, and using displacement to "line things up" is a bad path to follow.
The ITAC looks back at 5 years of the Process and finds it has resulted in far better equity and competition, that the category has perhaps ever seen, and notes that the clauses in the rulebook that allow the ITAC to adjust a cars weight because of "overdog domination" have never needed to be used. In other words, the Process is working.
Note that this "Predict, run the numbers, set and essentially forget" methodology is absolutely the opposite of whats been done for the entire existence of the club. Weight adjustments have occurred nearly exclusively as a result of on track observations, mostly at the Runoffs. Also note that the IT category is much different than the other categories in the club, with a 300+ model count to administer, and no singular event with full tech to evaluate performance. Our category is fundamentally different, and requires a different approach.
The CRB has vacillated of late, dramatically at times, but seems to be settling on an approach that is "old school", and uses "What we think we know" to 'adjust" cars. The ITAC is ..or was...philosophically opposed to such an approach, and the overwhelming input of it's members agrees.
I say "was" because this past 10 week period has seen the resignation of half the body, including Andy, the chairman. It's safe to say the resignations have come as protests over CRB actions or edicts, and the conflict those actions and edicts have placed ITAC members in with relation to the members.
Our members want clear communication and a transparent process. They want the Process published. A 'gag order' was sent to the ITAC, (Later it is suspected, but has not been confirmed, that it was not representative of the entire CRB, but of one member sending a warning) and Kirk resigned, citing the the members first principals of transparency and communication..
Our members have been clear that they support the Process and want it applied fairly across the board. Recent actions by the CRB of changing recommendations to suit their position, but ignoring the Process recommendation, as well as clear position statements denouncing the core of the Process, as well as the inability to suggest a method that meets our members principals of repeatability, transparency and fairness, as well as other issues, led to the resignation of the other three.
Of the remaining members on the ITAC, it isn't for me to say what their position is. I know they are troubled by the events, and I know that they want to serve the members and the category.
So, that's where we stand.
This has obviously been a drawn out event, and all the situations I've mentioned have been discussed heavily, and there is more specific information in many threads. V.2.0 has been 'published" over on RRAX.com.
The cliff note version: years ago cars were classed without a process/structure. Curb weight, how people think the car did in SS, and other nebulous factors were used, resulting in some classifications that didn't jive. Post classification rules changes benefited some cars more than others. Some of us used the net to discuss that here on this site, about 6+ years ago. Eventually, we had a mass of direction/interest and many of us wound up on the ITAC, the govering committee of IT.
A Process was created, and there was "the Great Realignment" (tGR) about 5 years ago. tGR affected 20 or so 'worse case offenders' and moved them into line with a structure that had as it's foundation, performance targets for each class. The Process used a formula of sorts, with adders for a cars physical elements to predict performance and align it with the performance target for the class. Essentially it uses stock HP as a starting point as discussion and analysis revealed that it was the best predictor of IT power. Different engines get different factors, then the other modifications are made for suspension, etc. Weight is the operative unit.
For 5 years, we adjusted cars on a case by case basis, usually baed on member requests. "Please review XYZ, it doesn't seem to jive with other cars in the class" is the typical request. As time passed, the Process was sharpened, and loose ends were attended to. This summer we rolled out "V.2.0", which removed areas where repeatability wasn't great, added evidentiary standards and buttoned things down generarlly. Like V.1.0 it's goal was to answer the members desires for repeatability, transparncy and fairness. The differences in terms of the weight the process spit out were nil for a median ITB, or ITA car. FWD adder was adjusted in the highest class, IIRC. Other than that, it was a buttoned up version of what we'd been doing for 5 years.
Through this period, the CRB (our immediate bosses, they answer to the BoD, and the BoD answers to you) was complicit and supportive of our actions. This past summer though, they objected to a number of recommendations we made, and held them in limbo, unknown to us. Eventually it was learned that they were at odds with the recommendations, and indeed, our methods. This was a 180 degree shift in the situation. Then they told us we could no longer adjust cars....at all. We then drafted responses to be published in Fastrack for all the requests/cars that we'd recommended already (some were on the books for more than 9 months by now) stating that we "Don't adjust cars". That never made the publication, and the CRB reversed the position, and we did the adjustments over again.
Some stuck, and have been published. Others have been rejected. Others have been sent back to the ITAC and we have been given options "X class or nothing, instead of Y class". And still others have been processed, but the weights the Process produced, and the ITAC recommended (to keep everything in line, consistent and balanced) have been changed by the CRB to weights they think are better.
The CRB stated, on the last con call, theat, essentially they absolutely do not support the core of the Process, which is stock HP. They feel displacement is a factor that must be considered more extensively. When making a recommendation for a cars weight, they instructed the ITAC to "Make it make sense" when compared to other similar cars. For example, a recommendation for a 2.0L car should "line up with" other 2.0L cars already listed.
The ITAC feels that a 2.0L car that has 120hp stock will not compete well with a 2.0L car with 140hp stock, all other things being equal, and using displacement to "line things up" is a bad path to follow.
The ITAC looks back at 5 years of the Process and finds it has resulted in far better equity and competition, that the category has perhaps ever seen, and notes that the clauses in the rulebook that allow the ITAC to adjust a cars weight because of "overdog domination" have never needed to be used. In other words, the Process is working.
Note that this "Predict, run the numbers, set and essentially forget" methodology is absolutely the opposite of whats been done for the entire existence of the club. Weight adjustments have occurred nearly exclusively as a result of on track observations, mostly at the Runoffs. Also note that the IT category is much different than the other categories in the club, with a 300+ model count to administer, and no singular event with full tech to evaluate performance. Our category is fundamentally different, and requires a different approach.
The CRB has vacillated of late, dramatically at times, but seems to be settling on an approach that is "old school", and uses "What we think we know" to 'adjust" cars. The ITAC is ..or was...philosophically opposed to such an approach, and the overwhelming input of it's members agrees.
I say "was" because this past 10 week period has seen the resignation of half the body, including Andy, the chairman. It's safe to say the resignations have come as protests over CRB actions or edicts, and the conflict those actions and edicts have placed ITAC members in with relation to the members.
Our members want clear communication and a transparent process. They want the Process published. A 'gag order' was sent to the ITAC, (Later it is suspected, but has not been confirmed, that it was not representative of the entire CRB, but of one member sending a warning) and Kirk resigned, citing the the members first principals of transparency and communication..
Our members have been clear that they support the Process and want it applied fairly across the board. Recent actions by the CRB of changing recommendations to suit their position, but ignoring the Process recommendation, as well as clear position statements denouncing the core of the Process, as well as the inability to suggest a method that meets our members principals of repeatability, transparency and fairness, as well as other issues, led to the resignation of the other three.
Of the remaining members on the ITAC, it isn't for me to say what their position is. I know they are troubled by the events, and I know that they want to serve the members and the category.
So, that's where we stand.
This has obviously been a drawn out event, and all the situations I've mentioned have been discussed heavily, and there is more specific information in many threads. V.2.0 has been 'published" over on RRAX.com.
I will have to get Matt to get me some extra something from somewhere.
Right you are, confidence is building, the rest will follow.
