This will go out this evening, after I have had one more chance to proof it...
Pursuant to the recent request for member input regarding the implementation of Performance Compensation Adjustments (PCAs) in the Improved Touring category, I respectfully submit the following points for your consideration:
1. Clause 17.1.4.B is not consistent with the policy operationalized by the PCA proposal and, before the proposed changes are considered, should be revised such that stated intent and policy align. While it is inappropriate to guarantee that every car will be a potential winner, it should be clearly stated that it is a goal to achieve equity within each IT class, if that is indeed the case. If this is not a desired outcome of the proposed rule change, it must be clearly spelled out what the goals are.
2. Within this clause, it must be clearly stated that no change to the ITCS should be construed as intending to provide equal opportunity for every entrant to be competitive. The fundamental purpose of racing is to sort the clever, talented racers from the rest of us—irrespective of the type of car that we drive. The distinction between “guarantee of competitiveness” and “effort to achieve equity” is critical.
3. The regional status and popularity of the IT category result in wide disparities in on-track performance within and among makes/models of cars—influenced not only by the inherent characteristics of any given make/model of listed car but also by (a) financial wherewithal, (
time commitment, © construction skill, (d) engineering understanding, (e) driving talent, (f) differences in race courses, (g) legality, (h) disqualifications and DNFs, and even (i) vagaries of the weather. A strong argument can be made that the fundamental design of a particular stock car accounts for a very small portion of the variance among elapsed race or lap times in any IT class at any given event, relative to all of these other influences. Further, no statistical examination of results data has been undertaken that suggests that it IS the case that make/model of car is the most powerful predictor of race-condition competitiveness.
4. For this reason—and while I understand that it runs counter to common practice in Club Racing and the unstated assumptions behind the PCA proposal—I therefore urge that relative finishing places and/or lap times NOT be a primary data source when considering any adjustments to “compensate” for the “performance” of IT cars.
5. The practice of traditional, results-based “competition adjustments” potentially results in a number of consequences detrimental to the broad interests of the Club Racing program—even as they further those of individual racers—including (a) perceptions of decision-maker bias; (
inappropriate efforts to lobby decisions; © de facto punishment of entrants of well-prepared, well-driven cars; (d) unfortunate burdens placed on less well funded, less skilled drivers of those same models of car; and (e) the need for any new car to go through the entire application, classification process before its potential longer-term usefulness can be assessed by interested entrants.
6. The single greatest shortcoming of the PCA proposal is that it does not specify what “triggers” will or will not be allowed to catalyze the process described in the last paragraph of the proposed 17.1.4.C. This leaves “Performance Compensation Adjustments” operationally identical to “Competition Adjustments,” at least in terms of the potential downside consequences that might result from their application (as described in 5. above). In fact, it aggravates the situation by imposing a multi-year probationary period on newly classified cars, making “recall” efforts enormously attractive to entrants interested in furthering their own competitive interests during this period.
7. It should be accepted that no system is going to be perfect, so a lack of perfection should not be invoked as an indictment of any proposed classification/specification system.
8. Further, it is specious to invoke the implicit threat that, “If we don’t change the IT classification process now, it will never be considered again.” If this is TRULY the situation, I would respectfully suggest that the problems in Club rules-making processes run much deeper than the challenges presented in specifying minimum weights in IT.
8. Perhaps most critically, predictability and repeatability are desirable qualities—perhaps even to the degree that they may exclude equity. It seems that many of the current inequities in IT classification and specification are the result of different well-intentioned decision makers applying various ad hoc decision making practices over time. The PCA proposal does nothing to ameliorate this problem in that acceptable considerations for changes to existing cars’ specifications are vaguely stated and open to individual interpretation.
9. Given all of these considerations, I recommend the following steps as a remedy to the current make/model equity issues in the IT category:
** Create an additional class between ITA and ITS – this will provide greater latitude in classification and resolve a number of issues as outlined in my proposal, submitted previously. It will address challenges at both ends of the ITS spectrum and at the top of ITA—three places where many commonly cited examples of inequity current exist.
** Establish appropriate minimum and maximum practical weights for the various makes/models of IT car, based on their stock curb weight and legal IT modifications. Do not make it necessary to add really large amounts of ballast or attempt to reach unrealistically low race weights, by reclassifying cars instead. Accept that cars will not necessarily remain in their current classes but establish parameters for each class, such that movements are kept to a minimum.
** Establish a formula for classifying and specifying cars based on their physical attributes. The simplest parameters for consideration are IT-spec engine power/torque (as inputs) and race weight (as an output). While other input variables may be considered (frontal area, Cd, brake swept area, suspension design, etc.), diminishing returns set in quickly so the value of a more complex formula is questionable. Do not allow individual make/model specification allowances to adjust performance.
** IT-spec engine output could be estimated based on SAE net quoted stock figures or a formula that considers displacement, engine type and technology (“old” vs. “new”), valve train design, intake valve area, or other design attributes. Although known power outputs for IT-spec race engines should be considered when developing the formula, final classifications should be based on engine attributes rather than specific makes/models (e.g., 16v DOHC vs. Toyota Corolla GT-S). It is less important precisely what the formula is, than it is that the formula be repeatable and transparent.
** Apply the new formula to a one-time realignment of the IT classes. Should it be necessary to adjust in the future, changes should be made to the formula, rather than to individual models (e.g., carbureted cars lose .1 in the IT-spec engine power multiplier across the board, rather than 240Z gets a 50# weight break). This will attenuate the effect of proposed changes, decrease the potential return (and therefore motivation) for requesting changes, and lessen the number of change requests.
** It bears restating that with ANY system, there are going to be some cars that are inherently better than others. At least with the process described above, differences are small relative to other factors influencing individual driver/car competitiveness, the playing field starts out reasonably level, the process is transparent, and it is possible to assess the value of a given car before it is classified. The application process would also be streamlined, lowering the workload on club personnel and board members, and speeding turnaround.
Respectfully submitted,
Kirk Knestis
Charlottesville, VA
103210
[email protected]
336-378-0127
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited October 14, 2003).]
