September fastrack

[lateapex911]

sure read to me like you were building a case for the RX7 to be moved/DC in B and were using Atlanta as a data point.


[/b]

You jumped the gun with that response. you know me...I am way too wordy to suggest such a thing in such a un supported manner, and you clearly haven't read what I had already stated on the subject. (That I feel the process fails that genre of car, and if it's broken in ITA, moving it to B will be a huge waste of time and money, and be horriblly short sighted)

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Is it possible that, for a car that the process 'fails' due to lack of torque in ITA (12A RX-7), that if it got moved to ITB - where power / torque is lower, that the 'failure' is mitigated by the different environment that the car then would find itself in? AND one of the strengths (high revs) is also much less common among the core cars in the class?

So is it possible to become more competitive in a lower class where the 'standard' attributes are different? I think so. I don't think class competitiveness is as linear as some are making it out to be.

 

[shwah]

Can't really speculate in a case like this.

The one thing that we know will be accomplished is that it will become easier to make weight.

 

[tnord]

You jumped the gun with that response. you know me...I am way too wordy to suggest such a thing in such a un supported manner, and you clearly haven't read what I had already stated on the subject. (That I feel the process fails that genre of car, and if it's broken in ITA, moving it to B will be a huge waste of time and money, and be horriblly short sighted)
[/b]

i've read the whole thing from page one. remember jake, for some of us, reading web forums and keeping up with all the positions and every word everyone has said isn't a major focus of our life. that post as a standalone statement still looks to me like you're building a case based on on-track performance at a single track (exactly like how it's done for every national class).

so sorry if i don't keep perfect tabs on everyone over 13 pages and 20 some odd days.

hey bill -
DC is stOOOOOOOpid!

 

[seckerich]

Is it possible that, for a car that the process 'fails' due to lack of torque in ITA (12A RX-7), that if it got moved to ITB - where power / torque is lower, that the 'failure' is mitigated by the different environment that the car then would find itself in? AND one of the strengths (high revs) is also much less common among the core cars in the class?

So is it possible to become more competitive in a lower class where the 'standard' attributes are different? I think so. I don't think class competitiveness is as linear as some are making it out to be.
[/b]

Exactly the point I was making. What does it hurt to give it a try?

 

[Matt Rowe]

Exactly the point I was making. What does it hurt to give it a try?
[/b]

Creating a precedent in which everyone who thinks their car isn't competitive request that it be dual classified. Who is going to stand up and make the decision of when a car should and shouldn't be dual classed thereby changing this from an isolated case to multiple cars spread across multiple classes.

What's the harm in that?

More confusion for new participants and spectators. How do you explain to someone that those two identical cars aren't racing each because one decided he wanted a heavier car. It's easy to say but then you have to explain why those other two cars can't make that choice.

More confusion on track (am I racing him for position or is he running the other class, no wait that was the other red model X that is in IT.

So if that is the downside what are the benefits?

It doesn't sound like we can agree the car is going to be anymore competitve in ITB at the process weight. So if it can't contend for a win are the current competitiors going to be any happier going slower? Are you going to attract new drivers with a heavier/slower car that still runs mid pack? Oh, and they have less chance of competing with other RX-7's because they will be split between two classes.

I just don't see a benefit that justifies the potential risk.

 

[Knestis]

...and that's precisely where I started this conversation. Well put, Matt.

However, if the DC option is seen as a remedy to ONLY the cars that "can't" make process weight in A, and the policy is applied by the ITAC only to cars in that situation, then the benefit/cost math might well tip the other way. It is always good practice to be explicit about what a given policy decision is supposed to do, to help prevent it from being co-opted to other ends.

"Dual classification is intended to allow entrants of cars that have difficulty achieving the specified process weight in one IT class to race in the next-lower class at the appropriate process weight for that class - this option being seen as preferable to forcing all entrants into one class or the other. Dual classification is not intended to achieve any other goal (e.g., providing opportunities for multiple entries in a single car), even if some individuals in some instances may realize other benefits from this allowance. Requests for dual classification based on rationale beyond the stated intent will not be considered."

Do I think it's the best answer? No. Do I think it's a pragmatic solution that balances the various needs? Yes.

K

 

[dickita15]

"Dual classification is intended to allow entrants of cars that have difficulty achieving the specified process weight in one IT class to race in the next-lower class at the appropriate process weight for that class - this option being seen as preferable to forcing all entrants into one class or the other. Dual classification is not intended to achieve any other goal (e.g., providing opportunities for multiple entries in a single car), even if some individuals in some instances may realize other benefits from this allowance. Requests for dual classification based on rationale beyond the stated intent will not be considered."
[/b]

Kirk, that is a great paragraph. I think it sums up what I would want very well and answers Matt’s concern about the flood gates opening.

I tend to in most cases trust the process so if a car fits the process in two classes I see no harm.
I do not buy the confusion argument against DCs. Without even mentioning Miatas as a person who is not an expert on Hon Duhs and Vee Dubs, I have not lost any sleep on the variants of rabbit/golfs or civics that run in multiple classes depending on which motor they have.

SCCA Club Racing in participant driven and the rules should serve the participants not the 12 spectators.

 

[Greg Amy]

...not the 12 spectators.[/b]

Dick, you can't count the tow truck guys in that...

 

[tnord]

krik -

do you think DC opens the door for the elimination of the "no garauntee of competitiveness clause?"

 

[lateapex911]

I'm not Kirk, but.

I do NOT think that any rule does that short of re writing the line....

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Dual classification is intended to allow entrants of cars that have difficulty achieving the specified process weight in one IT class to race in the next-lower class at the appropriate process weight for that class - this option being seen as preferable to forcing all entrants into one class or the other. Dual classification is not intended to achieve any other goal (e.g., providing opportunities for multiple entries in a single car), even if some individuals in some instances may realize other benefits from this allowance. Requests for dual classification based on rationale beyond the stated intent will not be considered."[/b]

Very well written, however, write your Fastrack responses to these 'Dear ITAC" letters (because they will come):

1. MY car can't make weight. I built an uber-cage to remain safe and there is no way I can get to minimum. Please don't make me make my car less safe to be competitive. Please dual class the 'Gremlin' in ITA and ITB.

2. MY car can't make weight. I am 6' 5" and 260lbs and my combination of entrant and car seem to be a candidate, please dual class the 'Pacer' in ITS and ITA.

3. MY car can make weight, but only at significant expense in time and money. As an entry-level class for SCCA, I shouldn't have to do anything but remove the interior and add a cage. Rotisseries? 100% stripping? NO I SAY! Let the average guy play at an achievable weight. Please dual class the 'Rambler' in ITB and ITC.

Do I think it's the best answer? No. Do I think it's a pragmatic solution that balances the various needs? Yes.

K[/b]

What do you think IS the best answer? Could it be the most "pragmatic solution that balances the various needs"...or is it something else?

 

[ddewhurst]

Let evolution take it's course. Let em die or IT will become the same as the poster child. (H & G Production)

Drew, no comment required. We should ALL learn from history.

 

[Knestis]

Very well written, however, write your Fastrack responses to these 'Dear ITAC" letters ...[/b]

That's too easy - "The car is correctly specified." Actually, if it were me, I would add, "Piss off, you great tosser" or words to that effect.

do you think DC opens the door for the elimination of the "no garauntee of competitiveness clause?"[/b]

Not in the least. It would be an adjunct mechanism to allow IT specification the process to work, and introduction of that process didn't obsolete that clause. I don't think it's written particularly clearly but it's held up relatively well.

K

 

[lateapex911]

But David, i suggest that you are confusing the issues. We're using the RX-7 as an example, because it has characteristics that make it very much a good consideration for dual classing. (Existing models built to a then mandated heavier weight, difficulty in getting certain years of the spec line to a new lower weight, etc)

This is NOT a discussion that is limited to, or centered on, old and obscure cars, with failing parts supplies.

((And using Prod as an example is a complete disconnect. They avoided the obselete parts issues by changing the rules on a car by car basis and allowing alternate designs of those parts. That is clearly NOT what we are discussing here.)

If there were a car that had been classed for say 1 or 2 years when it got a weight change that made it very difficult for the existing entrants to acheive, (and some could not) that was a popular car and only 7 years old, would you say the same thing??

 

[tnord]

:devil:

But isn't that the whole point (perceived) of the DC/B move? To allow the cars in question to become more competitive? Even though the car fits within the paramaters of the process in a certain class, we're going to move it to this class so that it can be more competitive? Won't others use this as precedent to justify a move for their car? Even though the no competitive clause may remain in text, it's actual function goes to zilch if we start trying to balance the performance of all cars "on the head of a pin."

KISS

:/devil:

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's too easy - "The car is correctly specified." Actually, if it were me, I would add, "Piss off, you great tosser" or words to that effect.

[/b]

Not letting you off that easy...

- My ITA RX-7 can get down to minimum weight but only after considerable time and expense. Time and expense I consider to be well outside the intent of the class. Please dual class the 12A RX-7 in ITA and ITB.

- My MK1 MR-2 can't get any closer than 80lbs of minimum weight. Please dual class in ITA and ITB.

Your responses to these two given the framework of your proposed wording?

 

[lateapex911]

Travis, the whole point of ALL the classification moves is to create the playing fields in the most level manner possible. BUT....they will never be perfect, and there is no guarantee that they will be any percentage of perfect.. Simple.

But it doesn't mean we can't try...

 

[Knestis]

Your responses to these two given the framework of your proposed wording?[/b]

Wouldn't be an issue because they would have been proactively considered by the ITAC and set with the institution of the DC policy, using whatever parameters they felt ARE appropriate. They would also have documented HOW they arrived at their decisions, and put those into the intent record.

...even though the car fits within the paramaters of the process in a certain class, we're going to move it to this class so that it can be more competitive?[/b]

As long as it's aligned by the process in its new class, it's not benefiting from some extraordinary measure to make it "more competitive." It's being made "just as competitive as the process is intended to make all cars in ITB."

My point about the "no guarantee" clause being badly worded, is that it isn't really that. It is - or should be - a statement about what won't be done to try to level competitiveness (e.g., use of competition adjustments [bleah], or model-specific allowances). It should SAY what it means so the phrase can't be repurposed to make arguments unrelated to its real intent. We spend a lot of time farting around trying to decode intent of statements like that, when it's not particularly hard to be explicit about them in the first place.

K

 

[tnord]

As long as it's aligned by the process in its new class, it's not benefiting from some extraordinary measure to make it "more competitive." It's being made "just as competitive as the process is intended to make all cars in ITB."

[/b]

and once the car gets into ITB at it's still uncompetitive but easier to achieve weight, the next phase will be the chinese-water-torture method of asking for a weight adjustment, which gets into your model specific issue.

that's what i see coming.