new weight for rx7 in ITS?

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 26 2005, 11:14 PM

PS - Touche, by the way, Marshall. A couple of folks were effectively pronged by the irony here, even if I understand how their senses of humor are pretty battered at this point. It's never a bad idea to lighten up, even if the humor's a little pointed.
[snapback]63763[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

All I ask for is a smiley!!!

Seriously, there are BMW drivers on this BB who have suggested that the top 2 or 3 models in ITS get 'adjusted'. We have received letters from BMW drivers suggesting that RP's be placed on any car that beats a BMW, on any given weekend...it is getting crazy.

I'll ask again, how about some non-ITAC/Bimmer opinions.

AB
 
No ITAC secret decoder ring? Check.

No Bimmer logo? Check.

For about the thousandth time, the conversation MUST shift off of who beats whom, where, when, and with what car.

It is absolutely impossible to separate the influence of the make/model of car from other factors, several of which have arguably WAY more influence on competitiveness - tire budget, engineering skill, or DRIVER TALENT.

Pro-325-increase people - Don't use cases of dominant on-track performance by BMWs as evidence of the problem. Every time you do, you contribute to that problem rather than solving it. Stay on message and MAYBE people will start to understand how things are supposed to work.

325 weight increase opponents - Grasp the reality here that ANYTHING you say is going to sound like whining and protectionism. There is NO position that you can take that doesn't seem selfish. Nobody really cares if someone who seems to be strictly in it for himself goes somewhere else.

ITAC members, of whatever ilk - Whatever you do, do NOT even CONSIDER specific adjustments requested by individual members for individual cars. Write the policy so that changes are initiated transparently, by the ITAC and put a clause in there that allows any request "not within these guidelines" to be dismissed without consideration. Even saying, "No, we aren't going to decrease your spec weight" encourages people to try again - hearing "yet" on the end of that sentence. Instead, put a clause in there that allows members to ask "that their car be reviewed to determine the degree to which it is within the defined parameters for the class," stipulate that any spec-line car will be considered only once every two years, and make findings binding over that time period.

On-track peformance, good or bad, is an indicator that specs should be addressed but NOT evidence unto themselves to support a change in specifications. Actual adjustments should be based only on physical attributes, to the greatest extent possible. At that point, +/-100 pounds is less of a factor on lap times than is the amount of sleep a driver got the night before, the number of beers he or she consumed, or whether they had a good morning dump before qualifying. Set it the hell free.

Don't get all starry-eyed, ITAC guys, thinking that I'm not still worried that this could go WAY wrong. It's a huge step in the right direction but there still exists the opportunity for IT to get swallowed up by the "Peterson Syndrome," where single good performances turn into rationale for ever-changing specs.

FWIW,

K

PS - retroactive :) for AB.
 
Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 27 2005, 11:59 AM
Don't get all starry-eyed, ITAC guys, thinking that I'm not still worried that this could go WAY wrong. It's a huge step in the right direction but there still exists the opportunity for IT to get swallowed up by the "Peterson Syndrome," where single good performances turn into rationale for ever-changing specs.

[snapback]63780[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


It's handled, Dude... :023: We know what we are doing... we know what the goal is... we know how we want to execute the plan... and we KNOW that we'd REALLY like to only do this once...

Those of you expecting to see yearly "Production" style adjustments are in the wrong class... This ENTIRE plan is an attempt to RE-BALANCE the classes after having seen many years of classifications that don't quite fit. We strongly feel that, once we execute this, we will have a valid set of classifications that are MUCH closer to correct (heck, on some of these, as you've seen over the last two years, we'll at LEAST have the cars in the correct CLASS!), and will allow us to classify cars in the future under a common process.

Call it an "alignment correction", a "class balance adjustment", or whatever... but the idea is that this is a "one-time" adjustment to get "everyone" classified correctly, based on a defined process, with the intent of more accurately assessing the performance potential of the cars in question...

Will we get them all 100% correct??? What do you think? BUT, will we get EVERYONE of them a lot closer to correct? You bet your a$$ we will... And, either way, this time around, everyone will have been classified under a consistent process, and everyone will have had the same considerations, etc...

It's all about the potential of the car... How much of that potential you guys are able to wring out, well... that's up to you once the specs are laid down... Once this is all in place, I think most will see that it's a step in the right direction... a VERY big step that will increase the viability of IT and should make for some GREAT competition in the future!
 
Call it an "alignment correction", a "class balance adjustment", or whatever... but the idea is that this is a "one-time" adjustment to get "everyone" classified correctly, based on a defined process, with the intent of more accurately assessing the performance potential of the cars in question...
Click to expand...


That, ladies and gentlemen, is the single biggest advance that IT has taken in quite a few years. A big round of applause :happy204: as well as a round of :beer:

Way to go guys! :023: :smilie_pokal:
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Oct 27 2005, 09:15 AM


That, ladies and gentlemen, is the single biggest advance that IT has taken in quite a few years.  A big round of applause  :happy204: as well as a round of :beer:

Way to go guys! :023:  :smilie_pokal:
[snapback]63791[/snapback]​
[/b]
Click to expand...

hellfrozeover.jpg



:D

AB
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 27 2005, 03:42 AM
All I ask for is a smiley!!! 

Seriously, there are BMW drivers on this BB who have suggested that the top 2 or 3 models in ITS get 'adjusted'.  We have received letters from BMW drivers suggesting that RP's be placed on any car that beats a BMW, on any given weekend...it is getting crazy.

I'll ask again, how about some non-ITAC/Bimmer opinions. 

AB
[snapback]63765[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

You must admit if you had a restrictor plate on and a RX7 blows by you in a straight away, assuming you both had equal exit speed, or close to it, what whould your thought be? I'll tell you, it would be why the hell do I have a RP???

This is my 1st year in ITS and am having a blast. No matter what happeneds with this class I can't dump my BMW or would want to just because of some rule changes. I can only hope the ITAC and the CRB uses good judgement knowing they will effect so many in all the classes. Don't rule from bias or prejudice. Rule with knowledge and conscience. The ITAC & CRB are part of all of our teams because of their effect, we can only hope the show us the class we hope they have because we will have to live by their rulings.
Cheaters suck.....you know who you are.
dj
 
Originally posted by dj10@Oct 27 2005, 08:06 PM
Don't rule from bias or prejudice. Rule with knowledge and conscience.
[snapback]63840[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I honestly find it VERY hard to understand how anyone could think that the ITAC is recommending ANYTHING based on "bias or prejudice"??.. :blink:

We've gathered more data, discussed more of this out in the open, and have been WAY MORE open to hearing all sides of the issue than ANY GROUP IN SCCA HISTORY!

What's more, we've been honest and open about what we think, why we think it, and what the expected results would be...

What I keep hearing over and over, mostly from BMW drivers, is this...

"we admit that the BMW has a horsepower advantage..."

"we don't want you to do anything about it..."

Guys... this isn't the ONLY car that is effected by our proposal... there are about 39 cars in IT that are being recommended for an adjustment of some kind, ALL with the same goal in mind... to get this right... It would be completely wrong for us NOT to try to get the BMW "right" as well...

And, to reiterate, we NEVER make a recommendation based on "bias or predjeduce", or any other no-objective term you might be able to come up with...

Even your (BMW driver's) OWN DATA shows that these cars have an "underestimated performance potential", as far as the current spec line is concerned... and these cars are straight-up, non-"cheater" examples...

AND, one more thing... If we had NO DATA at all... Just a new classification request with only a VTS sheet to go by, this car would be classified EXACTLY as we are recommending it be classified... THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT HERE!

This but ONE of the things we need to fix... and, it is our recommendation to the CRB to do so...
 
Originally posted by dj10@Oct 27 2005, 04:06 PM
You must admit if you had a restrictor plate on and a RX7 blows by you in a straight away, assuming you both had equal exit speed, or close to it, what whould your thought be? I'll tell you, it would be why the hell do I have a RP???

This is my 1st year in ITS and am having a blast. No matter what happeneds with this class I can't dump my BMW or would want to just because of some rule changes. I can only hope the ITAC and the CRB uses good judgement knowing they will effect so many in all the classes. Don't rule from bias or prejudice. Rule with knowledge and conscience. The ITAC & CRB are part of all of our teams because of their effect, we can only hope the show us the class we hope they have because we will have to live by their rulings.
Cheaters suck.....you know who you are.
dj
[snapback]63840[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I will ask you this:

Is that RX-7 built to the MAX? Is your BMW built to the max? What are the potential reasons for the RX-7 to have more power than your BMW? I would wonder as well, but I would look INWARD, not OUTWARD for the issue. Let me know your answers. I have seen stock 325's with bolt-on performance goodies hang with 175whp RX-7's. If you think it's a cheater car, this is a moot discussion.

We don't and never will rule from bias or prejudice. We must ask you all to look at the big picture and see that all we are trying to do is use a repeatable, defendable process for everyone, including you.

When you read back through th thread and you see the numbers I have posted, how can anyone argue with the simple math?

AB
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Oct 27 2005, 03:38 PM
I will ask you this:

Is that RX-7 built to the MAX?  Is your BMW built to the max?  What are the potential reasons for the RX-7 to have more power than your BMW?  I would wonder as well, but I would look INWARD, not OUTWARD for the issue.  Let me know your answers.  I have seen stock 325's with bolt-on performance goodies hang with 175whp RX-7's.  If you think it's a cheater car, this is a moot discussion.

We don't and never will rule from bias or prejudice.  We must ask you all to look at the big picture and see that all we are trying to do is use a repeatable, defendable process for everyone, including you.

When you read back through th thread and you see the numbers I have posted, how can anyone argue with the simple math?

AB
[snapback]63844[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
AB, if you (ITAC) are being as honest as you say you are, thats good enought for me, that is all anyone can ask of you. End of discussion. :023:

I know my car is legal. I don't know what max is, I should have some numbers next week. I can't say if the RX7's were maxed or legal. Just being honest. There is simple math then there is applied math. :)
dj
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 27 2005, 08:22 PM

Guys... this isn't the ONLY car that is effected by our proposal...  there are about 39 cars in IT that are being recommended for an adjustment of some kind, ALL with the same goal in mind... to get this right...  It would be completely wrong for us NOT to try to get the BMW "right" as well...

[snapback]63842[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

herin lies part of the problem. perception. the only car that seems to be talked about for adjustment is the bmw. why do the itac members repeatedly bring it up? why aren't any of the other 38 cars mentioned? where is this list? why is the rest of the list so secret, but somehow "leaks" about the bmw keep coming out?

either talk about ALL the changes or don't talk about any of them. by only mentioning the one, repeatedly, the appearance continues to be a witch hunt.
 
Originally posted by mlytle@Oct 28 2005, 01:21 AM
why do the itac members repeatedly bring it up?.... by only mentioning the one, repeatedly, the appearance continues to be a witch hunt.
[snapback]63867[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Ummmm.... WE (The ITAC) didn't start this thread! YOU GUYS DID...

Also, this ONE car has been a major thorn in our side for the entire two years we've been a group... We can't adjust much in ITS and make it fit as long as this car has the advantage it does...

The list??? It's with the CRB and going to be discussed on November 1st when I meet with them (via con-call...)... and it's not simply a "list"... it's an entire strategic plan for IT, including a formalized classification process, explanations of said process, explanations as to WHY the ITAC feels these changes are necessary and what impact we expect them to have, and, of course, a list of cars being recommended for ad-hoc (i.e.: one-time) classification alignments. It's not out because it's JUST A RECOMMENDATION... it still requires CRB and BoD approval for anything to actually happen... Therefore, it wouldn't be PRUDENT to put it out yet... You guys will see it soon enough if the CRB approves...

Why does the BMW get talked about and our recommendations "leaked"... again, BECAUSE YOU GUYS ASKED! I'm fine just keeping quiet about all of this until it is appropriate to release the information, but we are here to serve the membership and we want to be honest with you...

So, if you don't want it to be talked about, then STOP talking about it! :blink:
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Oct 28 2005, 03:04 AM
Ummmm.... WE (The ITAC) didn't start this thread!  YOU GUYS DID...

Why does the BMW get talked about and our recommendations "leaked"... again, BECAUSE YOU GUYS ASKED!  I'm fine just keeping quiet about all of this until it is appropriate to release the information, but we are here to serve the membership and we want to be honest with you...

So, if you don't want it to be talked about, then STOP talking about it!  :blink:
[snapback]63873[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

i'll stop when you stop...no, i'll stop when YOU stop... :D

we have asked for the rest of the list and specifics about other cars too, but that doesn't get responded to with the detail that the bmw stuff does..

we do agree though..if it ain't appropriate to release the whole list, then the itac shouldn't be talking about any of the cars specifically. i hear all the talk of mass releveling, but..

ok, i'll stop now...but only if you stop.... :023:

is it time for a beer yet?
 
Marshall,

I saw your original post and assumed it was tongue-in-cheek. Then I checked back today and saw that you sure got some excitement going!!

Mark Lapos
NOT dominant ITS RX7 #23
 
Originally posted by 22timber@Oct 28 2005, 10:19 PM
Marshall,

I saw your original post and assumed it was tongue-in-cheek.  Then I checked back today and saw that you sure got some excitement going!!

Mark Lapos
NOT dominant ITS RX7 #23
[snapback]63932[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

hi mark!
yeah, b ut as andy pointed out, i failed to make it more obvious with a smiley...

this crowd is so easy to get spun up... :D :D :D

wish i could make it to the comp school this weekend, but it is season payback weekend...off to a resort with the better half.

marshall
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top