November FasTrack is up

Ah. The answer to the mystery of IT classification, right there on page f-293:

“During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club assesses vehicle performance factors such as-but not limited to-manufacturer's published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight is established.”

Could it be any clearer?
 
Ah, indeed, and it gets even more entertaining! I see my car's now classified for limited prep FP... at 400# less than it's IT weight!
smile.gif


Is that normal? Seems like it's time to dig out the GCR and compare some...

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
 
Originally posted by Geezer:
Could it be any clearer?
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean by specifying HOW each factor is used and how each is weighted in the overall "equation" for the "calculation" of the final weight??? Well.. YES, it could be clearer...

HOWEVER, it could also be made much simpler and more accurate by adding a single word to the final sentance:

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">\"Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight is emperically established.\"</font>
Click to expand...

To be clear:
(From www.dictionary.com)
Emperical:
em·pir·i·cal( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-kl) adj.

A. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.

B. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
Click to expand...

That would eliminate the "need" to publish some formula that would likely turn the entire IT community upside down (as ANY formula would do) and would convey honestly and to the point how the classification process actually works... a process which, by the way, has traditionally worked just fine and has done a pretty good job of keeping things within reason...

Add to that the ability to make minor adjustments and/or reclassifications to correct for errors in judgement, and you have yourself a pretty level playing field... Unless, of course, you just don't trust any human being to make reasonable decisions and would rather spend your life in fear of black hellicopters and the batteries in your HP-48 going dead... In that case, no amount of verbage in a rule going to make you feel any better...
wink.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 02, 2003).]
 
Heck, I was just happy to see them post anything related to it. It appears they haven't forgotten about us asking the question...


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
 
Sorry, Darin - you're on my turf now. You are completely and utterly misapplying the term "empirical."

"Empirical evidence" is that derived from true experimentation or other research (quasi-experiment, case study, ethnography, etc.) that, while perhaps grounded in "practical experience," is assumed to (a) apply recognized systemic methods, (B) use reliable and valid methods to collect data, © involve rigorous analysis of those data, (d) describe methods clearly enough that they can be replicated by others, and (e) share findings in settings that encourage critical review - like professional journals.

To suggest that the IT classification and specification process has EVER had ANY of these attributes is laughable.

The data considered in a study may indeed be qualitative but that does not excuse the researcher from any of the above methodological obligations: One can't just say, "Well, from my practical experience, the findings are..." and call it "empirical." That would technically be called "crapola."

You're a good guy, Darin but this is just so far off the mark...

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
Sorry, Darin - you're on my turf now. You are completely and utterly misapplying the term "empirical."
Click to expand...

Would anyone believe me if I told them I had an egg timer sitting here ticking in anticipation of just how long it would take Kirk to completely rip apart my suggestion???
wink.gif


Kirk,
There are degrees and levels of application to pretty much everything we might suggest here... You can take a definition to the ump-teenth degree and never get any satisfactory answer, or you can take the generally accepted terms and try to get something done. Neither is wrong. Both can yield acceptable results...

The question in this case is just HOW accurate does this really need to be??? In either your case or mine, emperical methods ARE being applied. You choose to apply every method that can possibly be conceived, and I choose to apply those that I feel will actually significantly affect the outcome.

If your method gets a car classed within say 50lbs of perfect, and mine gets them within 75 or even 100lbs of perfect... do you think there are THAT many drivers out there who will have the resources, skill, and environment ALL come together at the same point in time to really be able to prove the difference in 50lbs, one way or the other???

Anyhow,... I initally had "arbitrary" there instead... but the definition for that implies that NOTHING was considered, and I KNOW that isn't the case.

So, in summary... I did NOT completely misapply the term emperical... Factors are considered and past experience IS considered. Maybe not to the degree the satisfies every POSSIBLE aspect of the defintion, but emperical non-the-less...

Tag... You're it!
biggrin.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 02, 2003).]
 
Originally posted by planet6racing:
Heck, I was just happy to see them post anything related to it. It appears they haven't forgotten about us asking the question...
Click to expand...

Nice but I doubt it's absolutely true. Looking at the weights there is know way that they actually thoroughly investigate the appropriate weight. It might be partially true with popular classes but with unpopular classes it's pretty clear they did not do there homework. I race a '88 Fiero Formula. They dropped 100# from the SSS weight for the V6. The coupe (4 cylinder) was never classified in SSS so the used the weight from the earlier years running in ITB. What's interesting is that the chassis changed in '88 both the 4 and V6 have the same breaks and suspension. Yet there is a 220# difference between the 85-87 vs the '88 V6 and only a 10# difference between the 85-87 4 cylinder and 85-87 V6 cylinder. There are other examples but it's pretty clear there is a less than empirical process at work here.

I'm not saying the weight for the '88 V6 is wrong, I think it's about 80# high but that's not my point here. It's that there is a clear indication in the specifications in ITCS regarding weight that is indicative of a week process involved in determining weight.
 
Okey-dokey, Darin - I take that bet. Give me a clear example of how recent classification practices have satisfied TWO of the criteria that I suggested - you can pick which ones. Here they are again:

(a) apply recognized systemic methods - recognized by anyone beyond those making the decisions

(B) use reliable and valid methods to collect data - "reliable" speaks primarily to repeatability, "valid" speaks to the degree something measures what it purports to

© involve rigorous analysis of those data - attempting to demonstrate that alternate hypotheses are WRONG, not that the desired outcome is RIGHT

(d) describe methods clearly enough that they can be replicated by others - again, repeatability

(e) share findings in settings that encourage critical review - this is NOT accomplished by FasTrack notes like, "The weight has been reviewed and found to be correct as listed"

K
 
Kirk,

I'll go you one better than that, I'd like to see him come up w/ just one of those criteria that have been met!

Darin (and George and Andy),

Since the FasTrack bit on the E36 318is said that the AC researched the weight of this car and found it to be correct, can you guys please share how you arrived at that determination?

I must admit that I did chuckle when I read that mfg's published specifications were used. This was due to claims that mfg's have over/under stated specifications in the past. I also chuckled when I read that the "Club" does the assessment. Exactly what part of the "Club" were the referring to?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I also chuckled when I read that the "Club" does the assessment. Exactly what part of the "Club" were they referring to?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the heavy end, normally used on those requesting reclassification?
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
I hope Darin is at a race. I'm kind of worried since he hasn't responded...
smile.gif


K
Click to expand...

Kirk... give it rest... I work in a classified area all day, with limited access to an "unclassified" PC and NO access to my notes/data... Did you think I was just going to just throw up a quick response to a question such as yours??? I have to have time to get all my lawyers involved!

I'll respond when I have my position as firmly backed as I can... Until then, RELAX, would ya?!
wink.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 04, 2003).]
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
Well, you always seem so speedy! Sorry...
frown.gif
Click to expand...

That's because he's using a cheater liquid cooled, overclocked CPU. But only a weenie would protest it.
wink.gif



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
As a fellow Canadian racer, I noticed that SCCA has finally recognised our ASN/FIA competition license and they will now accept it at any SCCA event. Thats great news as now we will only have to purchase one license instead of two.
 
George and Darin,

No comments re: my question? I'm surprised at you guys. You talk about sharing information here, but when there's something in FasTrack that says you folks were involved in a decision, you all of a sudden have nothing to say.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
You talk about sharing information here, but when there's something in FasTrack that says you folks were involved in a decision, you all of a sudden have nothing to say.
Click to expand...

Bill... You can get off it too... Apparently you didn't read my post about four up from here...

In the meantime, I've been gathering the information I need to make an attempt at satisfactorily answering you and Kirk's questions... It's not going to be easy, since my lawyers don't work weekends...

What are you in such a hurry for anyhow... You planning on building a 318 soon???

When I feel I have the information I need to post something on this matter, I'll post it...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
240_OR_041203_thumb.jpg
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:


Darin (and George and Andy),

Since the FasTrack bit on the E36 318is said that the AC researched the weight of this car and found it to be correct, can you guys please share how you arrived at that determination?
Click to expand...

Just to answer Bill's question (sorry, I have been out of town):

The ITAC did not research the weight and suggest it was correct as specified contrary to what the item says. We 'recommended' that the CB review their research and make sure the proper decision was made. Apperantly, they did and they heold firm.

Not sure why it said the AC did the research. They did the initial research and classification so it makes sense that they review the original docs and clarifiy their position.

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