Bill Miller
New member
What about the other question in that post?
And I guess I need to do some digging in the archives.
September fastrack
- Thread starter dickita15
- Start date
What about the other question in that post?
And I guess I need to do some digging in the archives.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Bill,
I can not remember COST being a factor when classing any car, especially when getting it down to weight was the concern.
As far as your other question, I think we are saying the same thing.
I can not remember COST being a factor when classing any car, especially when getting it down to weight was the concern.
As far as your other question, I think we are saying the same thing.
Bill Miller
New member
You're right Andy, you guys didn't think it could make 2450#, so it went to C. No hard data, no info on anyone that tried to build one. Oh, and with your 100# window, if it got to 2550#, that would have been close enough.
Funny how you'll hammer on the AW11 MR2, when you've got a lot more feedback on how it can't make weight, but just went on a hunch for the New Beetle.
Dual-class the tweeners and let the chips fall where they may. Spec 'em at process weight and that's that.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Bill,
WTF? We thought it would be real TOUGH to get it to ITB weight given it's curb weight and since that curb weight was quite high, it would fit in ITC. ITC needed some freshening up, so it seemed like a nice little fit.
As far as the 100# window, read the posts from beginning to end instead of what you want to read and argue about. The 100# window was used during the Feb 06 'correction', not as a general rule for classification. We class cars at their process weight. I brought up the issue WRT the MR2 to make a point. That point is that 80#'s here or there doesn't put a car 3 seconds back. It's all within the statistical noise of the IT classing structure as it exists now.
Head back to the Prod boards Bill, you are much more suited for those guys.
(For the record, I am not sure where I stand yet on dual classificiations because I just don't know how you define it in black and white - because guys like you will bitch and moan about one car getting a yes and another getting a no, without a written and transparent structure - but I am currently in favor of moving the MR2 and probably the 12A RX-7 to ITB at ITB weights. The ITAC is firmly split. See the Philosophy section for why)
gran racing
Super Moderator
The dual classification idea is a tough one. I like it as a way to help out the tweener cars, but I can see a few down falls to it. Like you said Andy, there will be people who will whine why their car can't be dually classed. I could see the "why is that car allowed to run in multiple IT run groups but not mine?"
For the RX7 and MR2, I'm still not convinced that dual classification is the solution but maybe it is?
For the RX7 and MR2, I'm still not convinced that dual classification is the solution but maybe it is?
Dual Classification;
Risk > Potential Reward.
seriously, what are we talking about here, half a dozen or less cars? potentially opening up a huge can of worms/cat out of the bag/horses out of the barn/pandora's box/etc is not worth it to appease a few people who even if we give them what they *think* they want will still be in the same situation after the change.
it started under reasonable circumstances with the BMW in ITR/S, don't let it lead the way for a whole mess of crap.
Risk > Potential Reward.
seriously, what are we talking about here, half a dozen or less cars? potentially opening up a huge can of worms/cat out of the bag/horses out of the barn/pandora's box/etc is not worth it to appease a few people who even if we give them what they *think* they want will still be in the same situation after the change.
it started under reasonable circumstances with the BMW in ITR/S, don't let it lead the way for a whole mess of crap.
Bill Miller
New member
Travis,
"Reasonable circumstances"??? Not sure how you come up w/ that one. First, the car gets special treatment vis-a-vis the SIR, something that no other IT cars has gotten. Next, it gets moved to ITR, where it belongs, but gets to stay in ITS w/ the SIR. Yet none of the other ITS cars that got moved to ITR got the benefit of dual-classification. How does special treatment for one car constitute 'reasonable circumstances'?
And all the metaphors are great, but don't really have much substance to them. And let's not even get into how you just insulted all the folks that drive tweener cars that would like dual classification. But please do elaborate on the 'whole mess of crap' that dual-classification would cause. Seems pretty simple to me, we've got a process that sets weights based on a given target for each class, doesn't take much to generate the spec weight for the same car in 2 or 3 classes. Give people the option of where they want to run. If a car runs in ITA at XXXX #s, classify it in ITB at YYYY #s (and maybe even in ITS at ZZZZ #s). Where's the huge risk? If the process works, it works. That means that the process weight for the car in one class should be just as valid as the process weight for the car in another class. The New Beetle is a great example of that (well, maybe not so great, as I don't think anyone's built one for ITC).
BTW, I find it ironic to the point of being humorous that you have that position on d-c in IT, yet advertise in your sig that you have a car that gets to run in multiple classes. Disingenuous? Just a tad.
Andy,
Come on. You say you class cars at their process weight. You also say that 100# is essentially the 'statistical noise' for that weight. The way I read that, is "Here's your process weight, if you can only get w/in 75-100 # of that, that's good enough." I'm not making this up, this is what you're saying.
Bill Miller
New member
I stand corrected. But why not all the cars that got moved?
Gotta wonder though, why the inconsistencies between how the weights are set for the cars in ITR vs. how they're set in ITS (disclaimer: I didn't check all the FasTracks, if this was addressed, please disregard).
good lord bill, chill out.
what do you suggest should've been done with the BMWs to slow them down in S?
how did i insult all the folks with tweener cars? all i said is that if they care so much about winning, they need to get a different car. you'll never please anyone, and if we change the entire philosophy of the class to appease a handfull of people at the risk of everyone else, that is not a good idea (especially considering the car will still be an underdog in the lower class following the same process).
actually there pal, i ran in IT exclusively for the last two years. the SM to IT thing is a COMPLETELY different issue than dual classification within a single category. good try though.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
What differences are you citing between ITS and ITR?
>> I could see the "why is that car allowed to run in multiple IT run groups but not mine?"
Good point embedded here. If the DC option is allowed to go forward, it needs an intent statement that makes it clear that the policy behind the allowance is not to allow cars to run in more than one class in a given weekend and that further, the fact that the change makes this POSSIBLE in some cases, in no way endorses it as being a DESIRED outcome. Let this idea germinate and it grows into the root of a bunch of further complications, like we tend to get into with a change like this.
** Please may I be allowed to mount ballast in different ways, to more easily remove it so I can run two classes? It's a safety issue to have to run heavy in ITB.
** Please make 7" wheels legal for ITB to facilitate crossover at races where my brother-in-law and I share my MR2. (Whether this is a good idea or not has nothing to do with this allowance.)
** Please reconsider the race weight of the ITA Celica so I can get a dual classification and run more than one class in a weekend. It's good for our regional program because they'll get more entries.
Et cetera.
K
Good point embedded here. If the DC option is allowed to go forward, it needs an intent statement that makes it clear that the policy behind the allowance is not to allow cars to run in more than one class in a given weekend and that further, the fact that the change makes this POSSIBLE in some cases, in no way endorses it as being a DESIRED outcome. Let this idea germinate and it grows into the root of a bunch of further complications, like we tend to get into with a change like this.
** Please may I be allowed to mount ballast in different ways, to more easily remove it so I can run two classes? It's a safety issue to have to run heavy in ITB.
** Please make 7" wheels legal for ITB to facilitate crossover at races where my brother-in-law and I share my MR2. (Whether this is a good idea or not has nothing to do with this allowance.)
** Please reconsider the race weight of the ITA Celica so I can get a dual classification and run more than one class in a weekend. It's good for our regional program because they'll get more entries.
Et cetera.
K
seckerich
New member
Since this is a thread about IT philosophy lets get it on the table. (oops--got lost in a different thread)We have all spent enough money in our cars over the years that we deserve a little more than the original class description. It is time to drop the no chance of being competitive. We have a process in place to get pretty darn close with every car in the listings. Might be a dog at one track but a fair choice at others. Time to stop guarding our turf and make the changes. I have never had more fun racing than this year with all the other makes that are now running right up front. I think it sucks that we could not just set the E36 weight properly and leave it in S like the E46. I miss racing these guys.
When we did the class-wide adjustments we picked a target for the class and tried to get them all as close as possible. Some long time supporters of IT got dropped to the edges and rendered uncompetitive in their class. Is it such a bad thing to drop them to the top of a slower class at process weight so they might have a chance? We make such a big deal out of the cars that were known to make "better than average" gains in IT prep but ignore those known to make less. Am I missing something? If they somehow find some huge power in the lower class we have the process in place to bring them back in line.
Talk about racing for fun all you want. Second place sucks and people will stop and move on if they think they never have a chance--ever. Some cars will really never have a chance based on their design no matter what we do. The other 70% or more should if the process is working. In the end it is about all the drivers and a fair shot--not a guarantee. I see the dual classing as a way to get more people involved and grow the sport--how can that be a bad thing.
Rant Off.
When we did the class-wide adjustments we picked a target for the class and tried to get them all as close as possible. Some long time supporters of IT got dropped to the edges and rendered uncompetitive in their class. Is it such a bad thing to drop them to the top of a slower class at process weight so they might have a chance? We make such a big deal out of the cars that were known to make "better than average" gains in IT prep but ignore those known to make less. Am I missing something? If they somehow find some huge power in the lower class we have the process in place to bring them back in line.
Talk about racing for fun all you want. Second place sucks and people will stop and move on if they think they never have a chance--ever. Some cars will really never have a chance based on their design no matter what we do. The other 70% or more should if the process is working. In the end it is about all the drivers and a fair shot--not a guarantee. I see the dual classing as a way to get more people involved and grow the sport--how can that be a bad thing.
Rant Off.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
This post should be required reading. It's like Kirk can see the letters tha come in...
Since this is a thread about IT philosophy lets get it on the table. (oops--got lost in a different thread)We have all spent enough money in our cars over the years that we deserve a little more than the original class description. It is time to drop the no chance of being competitive. We have a process in place to get pretty darn close with every car in the listings. Might be a dog at one track but a fair choice at others. Time to stop guarding our turf and make the changes. I have never had more fun racing than this year with all the other makes that are now running right up front. I think it sucks that we could not just set the E36 weight properly and leave it in S like the E46. I miss racing these guys.
When we did the class-wide adjustments we picked a target for the class and tried to get them all as close as possible. Some long time supporters of IT got dropped to the edges and rendered uncompetitive in their class. Is it such a bad thing to drop them to the top of a slower class at process weight so they might have a chance? We make such a big deal out of the cars that were known to make "better than average" gains in IT prep but ignore those known to make less. Am I missing something? If they somehow find some huge power in the lower class we have the process in place to bring them back in line.
Talk about racing for fun all you want. Second place sucks and people will stop and move on if they think they never have a chance--ever. Some cars will really never have a chance based on their design no matter what we do. The other 70% or more should if the process is working. In the end it is about all the drivers and a fair shot--not a guarantee. I see the dual classing as a way to get more people involved and grow the sport--how can that be a bad thing.
Rant Off.
Steve,
Hardly a rant - an excellent post. My only nit-pick is that cars that make less-than-average gains don't get ignored. Porsche is a perfect example. The problem is that when something makes good gains, it tends to have lots of support, many examples built and lots of data to build a file. Self fulfilling prophecies then disctate that if something dosn't respond well, people don't tend to build because effort is not rewarded. Data doesn't pile up so changes are tough to justify in this environment. In Prod, not so much.
JoshS
New member
If they are uncompetitive at process weight in one class, then it is highly likely that they will be uncompetitive at process weight in a different class, because, apparently, the process is failing them.
They only way that a car would be expected to get more competitive in a different class is if either:
- it couldn't compete at its process weight, because that weight was unreachable; or
- when given a new weight for a different class, the subjective stuff is reevaluated.
Bill Miller
New member
Andy,
In ITS, the Prelude Si, SH, and non-SH are spec'd at 2905, 2905, and 2825 respectively. In ITR, the same cars are spec'd at 2570, 2640, and 2640 respectively. In ITS, the Si and SH weigh the same, and both weight more than the non-SH. In ITR, the SH and the non-SH weigh the same, and both weigh more than the Si. Regardless of what the weights are in either class, I think the relative weights should follow the same trend.
Like I said, I didn't check all the FasTracks, so if that apparent error was corrected, please disregard.
Travis,
The E36 should have gotten set at the process weight in ITS, just like EVERY OTHER CAR in the ITCS did. The SIR language should have never made it into PCAs, and invoking it on the E36 was a Charley Foxtrot from the start.
And there's no point in trying to explain your insult to you, you won't get it.
And please explain how dual-classification 'changes the whole philosophy' of IT. There's a classification process. It defines a spec weight for a given car in a given class. Easy enough to determine the spec weight for that same car in a different class. What does it matter if you can slap different letters on the side of the same car? What's to say the process weight for one class is any more or less valid than the process weight for the same car in a different class?
Going back to the New Beetle example, I'm sure the ITAC feels that the 2450# weight for ITB would be the right weight for that car in ITB. I'm also sure that they feel that the 2650# (or whatever the number is), is the right weight for the car in ITC. That's a pretty solid example that you can generate valid process weights for the same car in multiple classes.
The fact is, dual-classification changes nothing about the philosophy or the intent of IT. What it does, is give people options, and it may even increase entries.
And I could care less about what class you ran your car in. You list it as a dual-classed car.
Josh,
That's pretty much it. The other thing that comes into play, is where in the class actual performance / spec weight 'bucket' that the car falls. I think we all agree that there's a performance envelope for any given class. I believe that's what Andy referred to as 'statistical noise'. If a car can't make weight, and happens to be on the lower end of the performance envelope, it's pretty much hosed in that class.
seckerich
New member
My point was that they might fall a little closer to the middle of the class and actually be able to have a real cage and other items a otherwise "weight challenged" car might have. More likely to get built and raced in any case. I see what some of the guys that come to my shop have to do to make min weight. Very gray!!
seckerich
New member
This post should be required reading. It's like Kirk can see the letters tha come in...
Steve,
Hardly a rant - an excellent post. My only nit-pick is that cars that make less-than-average gains don't get ignored. Porsche is a perfect example. The problem is that when something makes good gains, it tends to have lots of support, many examples built and lots of data to build a file. Self fulfilling prophecies then disctate that if something dosn't respond well, people don't tend to build because effort is not rewarded. Data doesn't pile up so changes are tough to justify in this environment. In Prod, not so much.
[/b]
I guess I would like to see us work a little harder to make it happen. We have too many classes in SCCA and it would be good to see IT7 or whatever a region calls it go away and get all these cars back in IT. Same goes for some of the other makes that are going elsewhere to race. Better to bend a little and see what happens. The ITAC giveth--the ITAC taketh away. :026:
If a car is at the bottom of say ITA and drops to ITB it might just race better at that weight. It would also need to be looked at in respect to the cars it now races. They may not all be modern fuel injection with all the tweaks. Many are the same technology and are a better fit. Just a thought. I understand the process and target weight/HP.
Well presented. The point though is that discussions about tweeners and dual classifications are suggested as a remedy ONLY for the first of your two situations. A VERY important distinction that should have been made this clearly earlier in the discussion.
If the problem is in the OTHER half of the weight/power math - if a car doesn't make the ponies required to get into the predicted range of ratios, that's a much more complicated issue. I am completely NOT a fan of trying to micromanage that part of the system by playing around with information re: what different engines "really make" with IT improvements. It's just way to susceptible to manipulation, inaccurate information, politics, and other manipulations.
K