Problems with new restrictor for E36 BMW 325

[dickita15]

PS: Here is an estimate on your multiclassing: 2000 in ITA, 2350 in ITB and 2760 in ITC. Think you can get to anything other than ITB? Like I said before, DC works for tweeners, probably not for cars classed properly.
[/b]

So right now we have a process where the ITAC generates number like this and then makes a value judgment on which class the car fits in. In the above example it looks like an easy decision. Maybe you could do a very expensive build and run A, or run very heavy in C, but B looks right.

With tweeners it is not such an easy call. Take the MR2, the ITAC has their best call on which class drivers want to race the car in. As with any close decision half the club will not be happy, so if the car works in either class why not let the members decide where to race it.

I think the double dipper argument is a red herring. It is not a reason to have DCs but it is not a reason not to have them.

 

[Bill Miller]

Lots of good things being said. I just want to make a few points.

No way. IT2 excluded RWD. You exclude 3 of the most popular cars in ITA today, the 240SX, the Miata and the CRX. THAT is why I didn't buy into it. Just because the misclassed 4cyl S cars went to ITA means nothing. And I still submit a hard-and-fast formula can't work. We all know it isn't what is being done now.
[/b]

I don't know why some people still cling to the initial concept of IT2, when it wasn't that long after Kirk first proposed the idea, that some of the limitations (no RWD) went away. I agree w/ Kirk, ITA today is pretty much what IT2 was operationalized to. If you look at all the cars in the ITCS as a continuum, the band known as "ITA" was shifted towards a higher performance level. I don't know if the band was widened or narrowed, but it was definately shifted.

Also, I don't think any of the proponents of a formulaic approach to classification ever thought a 'hard and fast' formula was the answer (or that it would even work). I know I didn't. What it was about, was having an objective model that treated all cars the same. And, in the event of an anomoly, you could recognize it.

I am not a proponent of 'full-blown' DC's as a policy decision from the SCCA. I am for using them sparingly, when it makes sense for tweeners - similar to the application of PCA's.[/b]

The problem I have w/ this approach, is that unlike PCAs, this has the potential to be largely subjective (and while I don't want to speak for him, I think this gets to the heart of Kirk's issue). Unless you develop the policy to include something to the effect of "Cars that are w/in the upper or lower xx% of their class performance envelope shall also be classed in the next higher/lower class, at the process weight for that class", it's just too subjective, and you create a situation where people will lobby for their particular car or want a legitimate justification as to why their car isn't treated the same as others.

One of the best things to come out of PCAs and the new IT classification model, was that it became a much more objective process. It lowered the ability of someone in a position of authority (ITAC, CRB, etc.) to favorably influence a given car or cars. THAT is one of the best things to happen to IT in years. Going to some kind of subjective DC model diminishes and undoes a lot of the good that PCAs and the new classification model created.

While I understand that some people view being able to run the same car in multiple run groups as a good thing (gets more people on the track, generates more revenue for the Region, etc.), I'm not really in favor of it. The SM/SSM situation in NER and now WDCR is a good example. Dick mentioned that one of the main drivers in splitting the run groups between SM and SSM, was because they were 'breaking out', and that once the groups were split, more and more people took advantage of the DC option. I can see this easily extending to other DC cars. Maybe it won't happen as fast as SM/SSM (which is a bit of an anomoly w/in the Club anyway), but I can certainly see it going the same way. What happens when you have a 'tweener' car, that now has DC, and all of a sudden, a lot more of those cars come out to play? I'm not picking on the 1st gen RX7, but it has become the poster child for tweeners. Let's say it gets DC in ITA and ITB (let's not confuse things any more w/ IT7 and Spec7). You've now added more cars to the ITB group. If ITA and ITB run together, you now have the same car (albeit at different weights and w/ different wheels) in the same group yet different classes. As a driver, you'll have to be very aware of every car on the grid, to know if you're racing w/ them in your class or not. If they're not in the same group, now you have the situation Dick described earlier, more and more of the DC cars will start to take advantage of another slot to run in, on the same weekend. What happens when you get so many of those DC cars, that you start to 'break out' of your group size? Or what happens when it becomes apparent to the drivers, that they may be better off running in the lower class? In that case, you've de facto re-classified the car.

Give the ITS cars going to ITR a year of DC, but don't extend it beyond that, and don't make it a category-wide policy. Look back on some of the recent re-classifications. Cars that have been moved down have had little (and in some cases no) weight added to them. If things are that close, you can make the case for quite a few cars getting DC.

 

[Greg Amy]

As far as the anti-Miata agenda goes - suck it up.[/b]

"Suck it up", Andy?? Way to go, addressing legitimate membership concerns about your proposed policies. If you can't take the criticism, I suggest you consider your motivations and your own personal agenda.

Maybe you'd feel better if all the committees went closed-door again and pronounced their declarations from on high after implementation...?

And as far your paranoid "anti-Miata" fears, there are none. The same argument stands if they're Hondas, or Chevies, or Nissans, or Yugos. It's irrelevant; my "agenda" is nothing more than a desire for parity.

Greg, this is absolutely positively not true. Ner had SM and SSM in the same run group before 06...[/b]

Be that as it may, Dick, the end result is that now these cars - which used to be in one slightly oversubscribed class - are now running multiple classes, further exacerbating the situation. Whereas before they were simply oversubscribed, the addition of another group has encouraged them to dual-enter, making the situation ever moreso, effectively unrecoverable (the genie is out of the bottle now). A good example of unintended consequences, probably something that was not considered when it was done.

Now that SM is National, how do the Regional race group numbers look, if you took the time to go through the entries and remove doubles? Would it still be 2X, or would you find that without the doubles the class would fit real nice back into its own race group? Check the pre-race stats for the upcoming LRP event: six SSMs entered, of which three are also entered in SM. Total group count with ITC: 11. Total count for SM group: 9. Total cars allowed on the track at LRP: 40?

If we found that at all races were we to combine the groups and remove the double entries, that it would still fit nicely, would there be a consderation to do so? Or, would we simply look at the total entry count without considering the doubles, see it oversubscribes the class, and continue to have extra groups?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of increased entries and giving folks the ability for extra track time. What I don't like is it being done for only selected groups of people, and not giving that same opportunity to everyone, while possibly reducing track time for everyone else due to the additional race group. - GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Suck it up", Andy?? Way to go, addressing legitimate membership concerns about your proposed policies. If you can't take the criticism, I suggest you consider your motivations and your own personal agenda.

Maybe you'd feel better if all the committees went closed-door again and pronounced their declarations from on high after implementation...?

And as far your paranoid "anti-Miata" fears, there are none. The same argument stands if they're Hondas, or Chevies, or Nissans, or Yugos. It's irrelevant; my "agenda" is nothing more than a desire for parity.[/b]

(On edit - I apologize for that suck it up statement. It just appeared that , like a couple people before you, it was just a 'I hate so many Miata's on the track' sentiment with no real reason why.) Greg, I fail to see a legitimate member concern - at least one that can't be solved at teh Regional level. All it sounds like is "I hate Miata's". Your real concern is finally posted in your post so we can address it.

The more cars, the better it is for NER and SCCA. If you build it, and they come, then they get to play on the field. Personal agenda? I have a car that fits only one class - the one that is in the GCR. You and I can run the same amount of run groups at every event if we so chose. Why don't you run ITE as a second class if you want parity so badly?

Be that as it may, Dick, the end result is that now these cars - which used to be in one slightly oversubscribed class - are now running multiple classes, further exacerbating the situation. Whereas before they were simply oversubscribed, the addition of another group has encouraged them to dual-enter, making the situation ever moreso, effectively unrecoverable (the genie is out of the bottle now). A good example of unintended consequences, probably something that was not considered when it was done.

Now that SM is National, how do the Regional race group numbers look, if you took the time to go through the entries and remove doubles? Would it still be 2X, or would you find that without the doubles the class would fit real nice back into its own race group? Check the pre-race stats for the upcoming LRP event: six SSMs entered, of which three are also entered in SM. Total group count with ITC: 11. Total count for SM group: 9. Total cars allowed on the track at LRP: 40?

If we found that at all races were we to combine the groups and remove the double entries, that it would still fit nicely, would there be a consderation to do so? Or, would we simply look at the total entry count without considering the doubles, see it oversubscribes the class, and continue to have extra groups?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of increased entries and giving folks the ability for extra track time. What I don't like is it being done for only selected groups of people, and not giving that same opportunity to everyone, while possibly reducing track time for everyone else due to the additional race group. - GA [/b]

So good stuff in these paragraphs. As far as unintended consequenses, I am betting that they were not considered when this was done - but the result is a nice boon in revenue for the Region...and as of right now, no detraction from your - or my - weekend. Win.

I would vote 100% that if a class or run group was oversubscribed that double entries (of drivers, not cars) would be the first to get the boot. We don't want to burden others with this overflow (which is your concern) but right now, ALL OF US have the ability to do the same in ITE...why is nobody doing it? The potential for the same issue to arrise in that situation is absolutley there. I think the 'problem' of too much participation can be addressed at the Regional level by each RR board when - or if a problem comes to a head.

I don't know why some people still cling to the initial concept of IT2, when it wasn't that long after Kirk first proposed the idea, that some of the limitations (no RWD) went away. I agree w/ Kirk, ITA today is pretty much what IT2 was operationalized to. If you look at all the cars in the ITCS as a continuum, the band known as "ITA" was shifted towards a higher performance level. I don't know if the band was widened or narrowed, but it was definately shifted.

Also, I don't think any of the proponents of a formulaic approach to classification ever thought a 'hard and fast' formula was the answer (or that it would even work). I know I didn't. What it was about, was having an objective model that treated all cars the same. And, in the event of an anomoly, you could recognize it.
[/b]

Bill,

Looking at the IT2 site (http://www.it2.evaluand.com/intro.php3) I don't see anything about the RWD or CRX issue being removed. I would have thought that would have been important. I'll have to look up the proposal Kirk sent to the CRB.

I also don't think the band shifted post-IT2 either. The markers were there - CRX, Integra, 240SX. Now all the cars have been rationalized - and and the performance envelope has not changed.

As far as a formula, I always thought Kirk's site used a calculator to determine weights. Nothing to compensate for suspension designs or other strengths/weaknesses. Definately could be wrong on that.

-on edit - I am going to bring this concern - as an inintnded concequence over to the other thread.

 

[dickita15]

[Now that SM is National, how do the Regional race group numbers look, if you took the time to go through the entries and remove doubles? Would it still be 2X, or would you find that without the doubles the class would fit real nice back into its own race group? Check the pre-race stats for the upcoming LRP event: six SSMs entered, of which three are also entered in SM. Total group count with ITC: 11. Total count for SM group: 9. Total cars allowed on the track at LRP: 40?

If we found that at all races were we to combine the groups and remove the double entries, that it would still fit nicely, would there be a consderation to do so? Or, would we simply look at the total entry count without considering the doubles, see it oversubscribes the class, and continue to have extra groups?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of increased entries and giving folks the ability for extra track time. What I don't like is it being done for only selected groups of people, and not giving that same opportunity to everyone, while possibly reducing track time for everyone else due to the additional race group. - GA
[/b]

Greg, it is too soon to say about this year’s numbers but they may be as little down. SM going national, gas prices, LRP entry fees all could be factors.
You ask if this we be revaluated and the answer is yes, if I have anything to do with it. Consolidating groups is politically hard, but I have been thru it before. If after a year or more likely 2 of data with the current groups there is a better grouping I will fight for it. Of course I will probably end up labeled as a Miata hater again because of it.

The goal of race groups in NER is to have the least number of safe race groups all with 40 cars in them. Now if we could do something about those open wheel guys.

 

[Greg Amy]

ALL OF US have the ability to do the same in ITE...why is nobody doing it?[/b]

Because it's selfish, Andy, and most people aren't selfish. It says "I'm going to do whatever I want to do, regardless of its affect on other people. I don't care if we need a second race group to do it, that's your problem; why don't YOU do it too??"

But let's take that idea a bit further: let's say that I and 12 of my best peers decide to populate ITE every race weekend. Then, let's say a half-dozen ITS drivers and another half-dozen ITB drivers decided that they, too, want to get more track time. So, we've just added - what? - 25 cars to the ITE field, simply because we "have the ability to do the same" thing. We keep doing that, more people start doing it ("hey, we're ITC! We deserve it too!"?), and now we have an additional group just for the vast field of ITE cars, which means we gotta start either cutting back on everyone's track time and/or tell people to go home. Hey, F you, I want more track time...I'm special.

You don't think that would be a selfish move on our part?

Sorry, bud, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I just won't do it. It's selfish and it's wrong.

 

[lateapex911]

But it IS being done in Sm and SSM and ITA....but yet it is NOT being done in ITE.

Hmmm.........are the Miata drivers, as a group, more selfish than all the other drivers in the club??

Not likely. (Say what you will about the driving and racing, LOL)

The real reason ITE sees no double dippers is this:

-It's too fast. Nobody in an ITB or A car want's to go out there with cars running 10 seconds a lap faster! Fact is, the Miatas fit in well in their douple dip classes. A fast miata with a so so driver is more off the pace than the differences in times between those classes, so the cars blend right in.

On top of that, Miatas are very mileage friendly. They don't tear up bearings and brakes and they are pretty stout machines. It's not a huge expense to race it twice in the same weekend. Plus, on the Spec tire, there are more cycles availble.

Finally, to many, it's an entry level class, and they know that track time is king.

Double dipping is one of the better problems a region can have. It means that they merely have to find a fair way to control entries. Much easier to turn biz away than to come up short on the bills due to low entries. Track rental is $44K at LRP if we run 50 cars or 250.

 

[Knestis]

... I think the double dipper argument is a red herring. It is not a reason to have DCs but it is not a reason not to have them.[/b]

My take is different - that the double dipping thing will be what captures the interest of folks. It will be the mechanism by which the original intent of the DC idea gets repurposed. Look back at the first posts from folks who have chimed in here, and trends in what they were talking about. What they were talking about is what is most salient to them.

I'm sorry that I'm whining, Andy but I'm frustrated because I can't answer your questions with any more concrete answers. And I'm frustrated that you want me to, knowing at some level that it's not possible. There's no point in hell in writing the CRB because they will (quite reasonably) respond the same way you have. I only hoped that there was a chance some of the key folks here would take on the conceptual issue at hand.

In the interest of history-keeping, the public face of IT2 was indeed "FWD only" but that decision was made for the same reason the ITR ad-hoc subcommittee(?) initially left the 'merican cars off the proposed list: To make it a more streamlined, politically-palatable proposal. Turns out that we might have actually made more traction with a proposal to simply raise the index at the top of A and list the orphans but we didn't understand that at the time. Bill (and others) was privvy to those conversations.

As far as ITE goes as an option for dual entries (red herring back on the plate), there is a WORLD of difference between being able to run a car reasonably competitively in two classes (SSM/SM, SM/ITA) and putting an ITB Golf out there with GT3 Cup cars and Vipers. One is fun. ICSCC essentially lost its "Sports Racer" classes back in the '80s, when it became popular to run second (or third!) entries of IT-type cars there. The SR group became a mish-mash of stuff with a massive performance envelope - "real" ASRs to essentially stock Datsun 1200s - and not particularly satisfactory to anyone.

When Greg says "parity," he means more than just the opportunity to spend entry fee $$. Of course, this point moves forward from the proposition that dual entries are part of the discussion. If they stop being part of the rationale for the DC policy, I'd gladly stop talking about them - even if I don't stop WORRYING about them.

If the only product of this conversation is a VERY tightly-worded, codificaiton of the limits within which DCs might be applied, that's enough for me. I still think it would be better to keep the genie in this bottle but I've had my say.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Because it's selfish, Andy, and most people aren't selfish. It says "I'm going to do whatever I want to do, regardless of its affect on other people. I don't care if we need a second race group to do it, that's your problem; why don't YOU do it too??"

But let's take that idea a bit further: let's say that I and 12 of my best peers decide to populate ITE every race weekend. Then, let's say a half-dozen ITS drivers and another half-dozen ITB drivers decided that they, too, want to get more track time. So, we've just added - what? - 25 cars to the ITE field, simply because we "have the ability to do the same" thing. We keep doing that, more people start doing it ("hey, we're ITC! We deserve it too!"?), and now we have an additional group just for the vast field of ITE cars, which means we gotta start either cutting back on everyone's track time and/or tell people to go home. Hey, F you, I want more track time...I'm special.

You don't think that would be a selfish move on our part?

Sorry, bud, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I just won't do it. It's selfish and it's wrong. [/b]

Well NOW I understand the core of your position. It wasn't clear to me before. I don't happen to agree with you. I see it as maximizing the fun I can have at a race weekend given the parameters in which it's presented to me (not that I do it - but if I needed to break a motor in before ITA and ITE was available at an earlier run group, that would be selfish?). Like I said, the Region would have the ability to squash any double driver efforts, should it become a liability to any one - or all the run groups. I think your view is short sighted - it's a good problem to have too many entrants and then have to decide the best way for all members to scale back.

Wouldn't his be possible: (Your region may vary it's classes)

Every SS car could double up in IT

Every IT car could double up in ITE

Every Prod car could double up in SPO/SPU

Every GT car could double up in SPO/SPU

So maybe we need to determine when it becomes 'unfair' to others. Defining a ceiling of sorts (of course this is a Regional issue).

If the only product of this conversation is a VERY tightly-worded, codificaiton of the limits within which DCs might be applied, that's enough for me. I still think it would be better to keep the genie in this bottle but I've had my say.

K [/b]

And this is most certainly a fair statement.

 

[Greg Amy]

I see it as maximizing the fun I can have at a race weekend given the parameters in which it's presented to me...that would be selfish?[/b]

...

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

... [/b]

Because it's my money and I can choose what I want to do with it including finding something that can provide more bang for the buck should this not. What's 100% of $0?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of increased entries and giving folks the ability for extra track time. What I don't like is it being done for only selected groups of people, and not giving that same opportunity to everyone, while possibly reducing track time for everyone else due to the additional race group. - GA[/b]

I think I have shown that everyone pretty much has the same opportunity to double up should they want extra track time. I don't see it as select groups. Here in NE we have SSM but it's a 25 car-class for gods sake. Maybe all closed wheel "Regional only" classes should run together! That will thin the heard.

 

[Greg Amy]

I rest my case.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I rest my case. [/b]

And since your defacto position is that we don't make it as attractive as possible for people to come and race with the SCCA, then you have made mine.

I find it ironic that your core problem is YOUR value-proposition on a race weekend in terms of track time while that is the same value-proposition these douple dippers seek to maximize as well.

 

[Greg Amy]

So, lemme get this straight: if we're all selfish, then no one's selfish?

Sorry man, it doesn't work that way...there's only so much birthday cake to go around, and when someone hogs more than their equal share, then someone must go without. The answer is NOT "everybody grab as much as they can as soon as they can" the answer is "stop being such a selfish little bastard."

Making it easy and attractive to hoard birthday cake just breeds more little selfish bastards.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

And when the Birthday cake runs out - or look likes it may run out, each Birthday boy can grab a new cake and decide how they want to slice it up to make as many brats happy as they can - because the bigger the birthday party the better.

 

[BMW RACER]

The concept of double dipping being concidered selfish caught me completely by surprise! I did a bunch of double dipping last year, I ran 24 races, double dipping on a double race weekend, I quit doing it this year because it became too much work for me. Our region (Calclub) encouraged double dipping, they moved the catch all class (RS) into another run group, they spaced out the run groups to give you more time to fuel up and get back to pre-grid. They even offer a discount for the second entry.

Maybe it's because we need all the entries we can get, but Calclub does a lot to ENCOURAGE double dipping.

Actually you could be concidered selfish by NOT signing up for the second class!

All a matter of viewpoint.

 

[dickita15]

My take is different - that the double dipping thing will be what captures the interest of folks. It will be the mechanism by which the original intent of the DC idea gets repurposed. Look back at the first posts from folks who have chimed in here, and trends in what they were talking about. What they were talking about is what is most salient to them.
[/b]

Kirk you may be right and if that it true I am definitely in a minority position (You know what that like don’t you Kirk). I am looking at a yard full of noncompetitive racecars that cannot get within 150 pounds of minimum weight. Allowing DC’s makes these Barn Queens viable inexpensive racecars.

If the only product of this conversation is a VERY tightly-worded, codificaiton of the limits within which DCs might be applied, that's enough for me. I still think it would be better to keep the genie in this bottle but I've had my say.
[/b]

Would it be possible, if we only wanted to apply DC’s to tweeners, to state that race weight will only be X percentage above or X percentage below stock curb weight.

 

[Ron Earp]

This thing has really gone off the deep end.

I don't write a lot of learned theoretical posts on the board. Not capable.

But this whole double classing thing is coming from yet again what car that has really caused multiple rifts in the IT community - BMW 325i.

We wouldn't need a DC rule if that car either didn't exist or was told definitively where to run, correct?

Ron

 

[Knestis]

The answer to your question depends which rationale is getting applied for the DC policy, Ron.

It either is - or is not at all - about the 325. It either is - or is not - about double-dipping. When the CRB is accused of pandering to disenfranchised ITS Bimmer owners, they'll trot out the other rationale. When confronted with some smartass wanting the same treatment for his Mexican grocery-getter, they'll change tack, claiming it's to resolve the greater tweener issue. Etc.

And therein is the most powerful evidence telling me that we are teeing up a big, fat opportunity for policy misappropriation. Multiple points of view, multiple interpretations, multiple versions of what we evaluation geeks call "theories-of-action," and multiple findings later of whether the policy is a success or not.

But hey, whatever. I love a good policy wonk conversation even if there's no real resolution possible. Sometimes those are the BEST conversations, in that we learn the most from them.

Explicate the intent in the DC allowance in the ITCS/GCR, be very specific, and maybe - MAYBE - we won't have a mess to clean up. But there are no guarantees. Don't do it at all, and the chance of problems goes way down but then, so do whatever upsides have been defined. If they are defined.

K

 

[lateapex911]

This thing has really gone off the deep end.

I don't write a lot of learned theoretical posts on the board. Not capable.

But this whole double classing thing is coming from yet again what car that has really caused multiple rifts in the IT community - BMW 325i.

We wouldn't need a DC rule if that car either didn't exist or was told definitively where to run, correct?

Ron
[/b]

No no NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Back that train up!!!!

It is about ALL cars currently in ITS that are being considered for ITR.

Historically, the theoretical converstaion goes like this:-

Certain ITS cars move to ITR.

Hmmmm thats not entirely cool, it's a big deal to move those cars up. New wheels, changed weights. Some might have extensive recaging to do as they were designed to run at a higher weight.

OK, Dual class them for awhile.

Hmmmm...what if they can't get it done in the dual class period?. Is it so bad to leave them dual classed....forever??

OK, well, what are the issues with that....(discussion ensues, but solid reasons are scant) ok, maybe none ...hmmm...well, leave them dual classed for good.

If that happens is that a precident? Can ANYONE get dual classed?

No, but tweeners are good candidates...they should get dual classed. That would solve the MR2 and RX7 problems in ITA. Lots of cars out there not getting raced. We're here to race, right?

If that happens, who says what a tweener is and what isn't a tweener??



And now we're talking about being selfish and hogging track time.

Somewhere along the way is a logical and reasonable place to draw the line.

The conservative thing to do is to allow, and codify it in the GCR as a philosophical statement, the allowance of DC in cases where cars are moved up classes.

The next step would be to add the provisions for the "extremely rare case" where a car is a tweener.

Thats the limit as far as I am willing to discuss.

I'd like to point out that the entire classification process is now institutionalized and very repeatable. I think that in the future, "tweeners" will cease to be an issue.

(Look at how the RX7 and MR2 became tweeners: A bad classification of the CRX that turned the class on it's ear. The CRB, unable to fix the error for years, then added cars to match the new higher performance envelope. Add to that the post classification ECU rule change, and you can see how ITA became a wasteland for a lot of cars. Having a repeatable process AND PCAs in place will help greatly to reduce the tweener possibility)