October Fastrack

[JamesB]

Matt - I was not saying you are the one pulling the safety issue out. Others are and they can argue till they are blue in the face, scroll back up and look a the weights of cars that are even heavier on the same restriction of rim width and they manage their tires quite well. Two of the heaviest are always in the pointy end of the field. However, you already knew it wasnt going to be competitive or you would not have changed cars.

As for trying to call this a competition adjustment and trying to open things up for help me adjustements like prod I dont think so. They took their time and did the research. From what I can tell ther car was always miss classed and everyone had lots of time to comment on it since the recomendation to BoD was published in fastrack before approved by the BoD.

 

[Knestis]

...I recognize the nose-of-the-camel argument and I reject it. ...[/b]

Then you get the IT that you deserve.

You don't buy my definition of "competition adjustment" (bleah!). I think it's because you don't understand the history or implications - or you reject those too, which is your right - but you MAYBE want to check with the ITAC to see if their definition is closer to how you operationalize the term, or to how I do.

I've committed to not losing any more sleep, if the majority of IT entrants decide that they want to sleep with those camels (or hiccup, or whatever tortured metaphor you choose) but just be sure you'll be happy about the consequences the next morning.

K

 

[jjjanos]

Then you get the IT that you deserve.
[/b]

Pause awhile and let my counsel sway you in this case.

The specified minimum weights are competition adjustments - period. There are simpy viewed as an acceptable form of adjustment despite being very model specific. The ITAC might not view it as a competition adjustment but

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

[DavidM]

Pause awhile and let my counsel sway you in this case.

The specified minimum weights are competition adjustments - period. There are simpy viewed as an acceptable form of adjustment despite being very model specific. The ITAC might not view it as a competition adjustment but

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
[/b]

Blasphemy.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

My definition of competition adjustments from SCCA Club racings perspective is something like this:

'A post-classification change in a models spec (min weight, engine restriction, etc) for the specific purpose of changing it's on-track competitiveness'

The rest is just word-play. Min weights are 'competition setters'. Adjustments tweak what is already done. Now that most of the cars in IT are through the process and the 'set it' is done...we are in 'forget it' mode.

 

[jjjanos]

My definition of competition adjustments from SCCA Club racings perspective is something like this:

'A post-classification change in a models spec (min weight, engine restriction, etc) for the specific purpose of changing it's on-track competitiveness'

The rest is just word-play. Min weights are 'competition setters'. Adjustments tweak what is already done. Now that most of the cars in IT are through the process and the 'set it' is done...we are in 'forget it' mode.
[/b]

Andy,

We'll just have to disagree on whether there is a difference between a competition setter and a competition adjustment.

However, since you are here.... what is the rational behind 9.1.3.D.7.a.6, both in terms of it's creation and it's continuation when classifying new/reclassifying old vehicles?

 

[lateapex911]

Well, I can't speak for the whole ITAC, but my philosophy aligns with Andy's. How silly would it be to set weights in a vacuum, without trying to create some semblence of equality? Why bother to race if there will be one car that is the fastest? Really! We could have one class and call it "Spec most expensive" or something.

OF COURSE we class cars in such a way as to create some form of parity! However, and this is important, the IT method is baeed on the physical attributes of the cars, not on how fast they went at the Ruboffs (thanks Kirk) last year.

THAT is a HUGE difference, and I contend that that difference means the camels nose is NOT in the tent.

A competition adjustment is an adjustment of a car based on it's lack, or excessive, competiveness.

Oh...and I love it when I have to look something up to satisfy a query.

 

[JoshS]

Oh...and I love it when I have to look something up to satisfy a query.
[/b]

Me too ... but I looked it up.

"Maximum allowable rim widths: ITR - 8.5 inches, classes
ITS and ITA - seven (7) inches; classes ITB and ITC - six
(6) inches."

 

[rcc85]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think the Shelby Charger will be very competitive in ITB. A bit more power and a bit more weight than the Plymouth TC3 (and that has proven to be a winner in MARRS).

Now, I just need to talk to somebody about getting the minimum weight lowered on the Daytona!!

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

 

[Bill Miller]

A competition adjustment is an adjustment of a car based on it's lack, or excessive, competiveness.

[/b]

Which is exactly what moving a car from one class to another is (even says so right in the ITCS). One of the problems I see here was the use of 'weasel words' from the outset. Everyone was so worried about calling PCA's comp. adjustments, that they made up all kinds of rationale as to why they weren't.

As far as the argument that letting ITB and ITC run 7" wheels will cost everyone more money, what do you think allowing an open ECU is going to do? You've taken something that was primarily something that those w/ really deep pockets dabbled in, and are proposing to make it more accessible (read: less costly) to more people. Now you'll HAVE to pony up the money for it.

I'll throw this out as a compromise solution. Let any car that gets moved from ITA to ITB run the 7" wheels w/ a weight penalty. The classification process should be able to put a number on what 7" wheels are worth over 6" wheels. Not sure if it should be a fixed number (e.g. 50#), or it should be a percentage of the cars spec weight. Sure doesn't seem that hard. Heck, you could give any ITB and ITC car that option.

I know that this will make some people cringe (Kirk, are you out there?), but look at it like Prod does w/ their alternate trannys. Sure would make it less painful on anyone moving from ITA to ITB.

Discuss.

 

[lateapex911]

Which is exactly what moving a car from one class to another is (even says so right in the ITCS).
[/b]

No. Moving the Borgward down a class is only a comp adjustment if it's being done because the car isn't competitive. In this case, a request was made to look closely at the cars numbers. It was researched, and found to be a car that fit the process in ITB, not ITA. That is a reclass based on numbers, not a comp adjustment.

As far as the argument that letting ITB and ITC run 7" wheels will cost everyone more money, what do you think allowing an open ECU is going to do? You've taken something that was primarily something that those w/ really deep pockets dabbled in, and are proposing to make it more accessible (read: less costly) to more people. Now you'll HAVE to pony up the money for it.[/b]

Again, not at all. There are plenty of cars that make very close to their potential power with a chip swap. Some have found that they have tried all sorts of ECUs (just for research) and the factory solution works best. So, it is clearly NOT a case of everybody having to add an open ECU.

(And interestingly, I've gotten letters from people that are remorseful this has taken so long, as they've spent buckets of money developing chips and such, and could have been money ahead if the rule had passed much sooner.)

 

[Knestis]

...I know that this will make some people cringe (Kirk, are you out there?), but look at it like Prod does w/ their alternate trannys. Sure would make it less painful on anyone moving from ITA to ITB.[/b]

If I wanted to devote the energy, I'd be cringing. And "like Prod does w/their alternate transmissions" is PRECISELY the best argument for NOT doing it, by my way of thinking. Suffice to say - ugh.

Moving the Borgward down a class is only a comp adjustment if it's being done because the car isn't competitive. In this case, a request was made to look closely at the cars numbers. ...[/b]

THANK YOU, Jake! This is an important distinction, that is completely lost on Mr. Janos: If the adjustment is made BASED ON on-track performance, it's a performance adjustment (bleah). If it's INTENDED TO INFLUENCE on-track performance, it's an entirely different kettle of fish - Andy's coining of the term "competition setter" isn't very far off, even if he did make it up at 4:07pm this afternoon.

The distinction - again, in case you haven't been tuned in to my ramblings here for the last 7 years - is in the the basis on which the decision is made. While the motivation for the initial request to re-examine the Shelby might have been that its owner was struggling to be competitive (the car "wasn't competitive" in A), the method by which the actual adjustment was determined was based on the physical attributes of the car. This is a crucial difference.

It IS also pertinent that the only variable being manipulated is the weight. This takes variables out of the muddle.

The current process is about 90% in the light of day, too. This keeps (helps keep? should keep?) the process above board and responsive to the math, rather than responsive to back-room dealings or special considerations. This is a GOOD THING. There are some fudge factors that I have concerns about but they generally bear on outliers and oddballs, so don't have the potential for huge negative impact if they are off.

K

 

[jjjanos]

No. Moving the Borgward down a class is only a comp adjustment if it's being done because the car isn't competitive. In this case, a request was made to look closely at the cars numbers. It was researched, and found to be a car that fit the process in ITB, not ITA. That is a reclass based on numbers, not a comp adjustment.[/b]

If you are saying that car is going to be moved from A to B because its performance characteristics don't justify it being in A (where it is NOT competitive) to moving it to B (where it might be), well that's a readjustment based on whether the car is competitive and hence a competition adjustment.

Even in the case where a brand new car gets put in ITReallyFast and the CB realizes the car should have been classified in ITSlowasabrick, the move is still done for competition reasons.

The CB doesn't allow the fancy prod alterations into IT. Cool. Great. I still haven't heard a valid reason to deny allowing the use of larger wheels on cars in cases where CRB adjustments result in the requirement to purchase new wheels or not race. What I have heard are reasons based on an appeal to probability (if we allow it now, there is a chance that everyone will get specific changes and therefore they will get these changes), a false dilemma (either this car runs 6" wheels or there will be willy-nilly changes everywhere), the slippery slope (once it starts, it never will end) and association (changes like this occur in prod, therefore they will happen in IT if this is allowed) - these are all logic fallacies.

And it's all based on some as yet unjustified and perhaps unjustifiable rule that cars cannot run rims wider than 6"!

There are three outcomes here:
1. You trust the decisions makers when it comes to preventing willy-nilly changes just because - in which case this change means nothing.
2. You don't trust the decision makers when it comes to preventing these changes - in which case, why provide input because you don't trust 'em.
or
3. You trust them to make sensible decisions that aren't going to FUBAR IT - in which case, someone please tell me why the owners of these cars need to go out and purchase new wheels when slapping some weight on the damn car as part of reclassification will negate the advantage of larger wheels. It's absolutely no different than what they did when classifying the CRX Dx and Si in ITC and ITB. They put extra weight on the B car (based on the curb weight spec sheet I quoted from the innernut).

 

[jjjanos]

THANK YOU, Jake! This is an important distinction, that is completely lost on Mr. Janos: If the adjustment is made BASED ON on-track performance, it's a performance adjustment (bleah). If it's INTENDED TO INFLUENCE on-track performance, it's an entirely different kettle of fish - Andy's coining of the term "competition setter" isn't very far off, even if he did make it up at 4:07pm this afternoon. [/b]

Oh, it's not a distinction lost on me. It's just a distinction without a difference to me since the ultimate aim is the same - approximation of equity across cars classified in the same classes.

The only difference is that

The a priori adjustments are (usually) done without real data. I.e. well, we think this car, based on its specifications belongs here and we are declaring its minimum weight to be this based upon its initial weight, what we think people can strip out of it and how fast we think it will go.

and

the ex post facto adjustments are done with real data as to how the car performs.

In a perfect world, there would be no ex post facto adjustments. In the real world, the equations that determine a car's capability frequently are too complex to be captured by a model and hence they need for after-the-fact adjustments. All in all, the CB does a pretty darn good job with their initial guess.

And it still leaves unanswered the two questions I asked: (a) The rational for the wheel rim rule in the first pace and ( why are telling the owners of these cars that they need to purchase new wheels when there is an option that is a pareto improvement?

 

[Knestis]

...or 4. I trust the current decision makers but have enough experience in this organization to know that they could all go away in 12 months, and we'd be left with whatever system they left in place.

You can put it in bold all you want but you are missing the key attributes of the operational definition of the term.

...these are all logic fallacies.[/b]

You might be surprised that, to a certain extent, I don't disagree. However, they are pragmatic protections from policy - or rules - creep, based on my 25 years of watching the same thing happen over, and over, and over again. We have to put systems in place assuming someone will leverage by the application of resources and power differential (or whatever means possible) to further their own individual intentions for a rule, practice, or policy (Hall, 1995; Hall & McGinty, 1997).

People are persistent and marginal changes over time can seriously redirect policy - and in this case, mess up the good thing that we finally have going here.

At this point, I'm not changing your mind - and you are wrong. So as I said, while I don't hope that you get what you want, I hope you can live with what you get.

Yeah - have fun with that. (Giles, 2005)

K


Giles, Scott. (2005). You don't know shit about shit. (Web smackdown) The Interweb.

Hall, P. M. (1995). The consequences of qualitative analysis for sociological theory: Beyond the microlevel. The Sociological Quarterly, 36(2), 397-423.

Hall, P. M., & McGinty, P. J. W. (1997). Policy as the transformation of intentions: Producing program from statute. The Sociological Quarterly, 38(3), 439-467.

 

[Dave Ebersole]

.......And stop qualifying behind the ITC leaders so I don't watch you eventually dissapear since trying to pass the 4 of them was NOT an option though I had one chance when they all blocked each other to attempt to squeeze through but decided id rather just video them and stick to their tails and learn a trick or 5.
[/b]

Believe me I wasn't too happy with my times that afternoon. If only my diff hadn't come apart after 2 laps! I learned a valuable lesson anyway. Use Loc-tite on your ring gear bolts!

 

[Bill Miller]

No. Moving the Borgward down a class is only a comp adjustment if it's being done because the car isn't competitive. In this case, a request was made to look closely at the cars numbers. It was researched, and found to be a car that fit the process in ITB, not ITA. That is a reclass based on numbers, not a comp adjustment.[/b]

Jake,

Please stop w/ the double-talk. We (as well as most of the other people here) both know that the 'boundary' cars could fall in either of the two classes that they are on the 'boundary' of. It's perfectly valid to say that the process puts the Borgward in ITA @ xxxx lbs and in ITB @ xxxx + yyy lbs. Those would both be valid classifications of the Borgward. The class-to-class distinction just isn't that clear cut, unless you're at the pointy end of the class. And if the Shelby was the grossly mis-classed, why wasn't it picked up last year? You guys did run every car in the ITCS through the process didn't you?

I'm not saying the car shouldn't be in ITB, I'm just tired of your weasel word double-talk. It's equally as valid to say, that after the great realignment, any actions taken as a response to a member's request, constitute a competition adjustment.

Again, not at all. There are plenty of cars that make very close to their potential power with a chip swap. Some have found that they have tried all sorts of ECUs (just for research) and the factory solution works best. So, it is clearly NOT a case of everybody having to add an open ECU.

(And interestingly, I've gotten letters from people that are remorseful this has taken so long, as they've spent buckets of money developing chips and such, and could have been money ahead if the rule had passed much sooner.)
[/b]

If I didn't know better, I'd say you just made a strong case for requiring stock ECUs. And, you could make the same argument about going to 7" wheels, it's not necessarily going to make the car faster. Especially w/ lower-powered cars like ITB and ITC, it's possible to over-tire the car. So, just because you could fit a 245/50/15 under and ITC Rabbit, on a 7" wheel, there's no way that you can guarantee that it will be faster.

And I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for people that spend buckets of money trying to make their cars faster, and then will whine because the rules didn't change fast enough to save them some money. Racing is not cheap, and racing at the pointy end of the field is down right expensive. That's the way this game works. And from your comment, it almost sounds like you're saying that rules should be pushed through, so that they save people money, rather than being given thorough consideration as to how they impact the entire category.

 

[JamesB]

Also remember said bogwart that kicked all this off did not change min weight! And the non shelby charger with the same motor and not as hot of a factory cam is in ITB at a slightly lower weight.

 

[rlward]

Now, I just need to talk to somebody about getting the minimum weight lowered on the Daytona!!

Well, it appears that may be very easy...just write a letter, wait for them to act very slowly, and presto it's done!

 

[JamesB]

Believe me I wasn't too happy with my times that afternoon. If only my diff hadn't come apart after 2 laps! I learned a valuable lesson anyway. Use Loc-tite on your ring gear bolts!
[/b]

Dave, believe me I was very happy with my times because I was consistent through the whole race. Now that I am not constantly fighting the car I can focus on my lines and improving my braking zones.