Pony Car Proposal for ITR

[JoshS]

Jeff,

I'm sure we'll discuss it in detail after the results are published. I promise. Let's be patient until then.

 

[JeffYoung]

I'm not impatient. I'm just concerned about the shitstorm we are going to see on this car.

What's the policy reason for not disclosing the ITAC recommendation now?

 

[JoshS]

I'm not impatient. I'm just concerned about the shitstorm we are going to see on this car.

What's the policy reason for not disclosing the ITAC recommendation now?

Let me be clear, there's been no special "policy decision" about this issue. There is a standing policy of not publishing the minutes of the meetings. The standard way of answering member input is through Fastrack. That's the only policy.

My PERSONAL OPINION is that if we publish this now, it'll just flood the CRB and BOD with letters that are no more compelling than the ones they already have ... except that they will be prefaced with "The ITAC messed up! Don't listen to them!" and they will be from the same people, for the most part, who already wrote letters.

I say to let the process take its course.

 

[Knestis]

Because if we recommend 2100 pounds and the board decides 3100 pounds, there are two weights for people with different agendas to be PO'd about.

This is a bit of a special case because as "types" go, this one has a population of one - there's no other car "like it" in IT. It's best that we just have ONE number for people to have opinions on. As Josh points out, "opinions will vary" so the conversations will be heated enough without complicating them more than necessary.

More broadly, as a matter of policy, it doesn't do anyone any good to for us to get out ahead of the board on announcements. The ITAC has what I consider to be a VERY good relationship with that body right now, and it would be poor form to compromise that. We get a lot done that's good for IT by maintaining that relationship.

If it were as simple as saying, "the process weight for the MkII Golf is XXXX," we could do that. This isn't one of those situations.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

Fair enough, although I disagree.

I would publish the ITAC recommended weight now, and let folks comment on it BEFORE a decision is made. At least that way, unlike with the E36 weight for example, people can't say they were sandbagged.

But either way is fine by me.

 

[seckerich]

First off guys, thanks for taking the time to look at this car and treat it as the special case it is. Time will tell if you got it right. I figure I better post this in case I am one of the pissed off crowd. If it is too heavy it is DOA and it will be like a lot of the other cars in the ITR listing that will never get built. I hope you took this chance to class the car fair because it has the potential to really help grow ITR. Now off to Laguna Seca to play with its big brother in GT this weekend!!

 

[dickita15]

I think the ITAC members are right here. The ITAC is an extension of the CRB. I hate when people who have minority opinions on boards undercut a board’s decision.
I am sure that when it is published we could hear something like “some on the ITAC wanted to me more/less aggressive on the weight but all and all we are glad it is classified”
That is fair.
Besides no matter what the number is there will be nasty letters and that kind of shit storm keeps anything from getting done.

 

[erlrich]

I think it would be a bad idea to publish the weight ahead of the Fastrack announcement. First, the ITAC has obviously done their research and made a recommendation. The point where the IT.com peanut gallery gets to add their collective two cents to that process has passed. Second, as noted, the board may not agree with the recommended weight; and then all that bitching and moaning about the ITAC recommended weight would be for naught

 

[Knestis]

... If it is too heavy it is DOA and it will be like a lot of the other cars in the ITR listing that will never get built. I hope you took this chance to class the car fair because it has the potential to really help grow ITR. ...

It's probably no surprise that positions fell out into two camps:

** If you list it too heavy, nobody will build one and it will ruin ITR

** If you list it too light, everyone will build one and it will ruin ITR

Of course, I'm overstating just a LITTLE bit but you get the idea. I'll be most pleased if EVERYONE complains. That's my operational definition of consensus - everybody is pissed off.



K

 

[JeffYoung]

But why shouldn't the membership have just an active a role in the weight making decision at the ITAC level as the "do" at the CRB level?

I guess I mean, why not have the ITAC recommend a weight and open that weight up for comment before it goes to the CRB?

The more open the process is and the more opportunity to "test" the number yes, the more people can bitch in the short turn but the LESS they can scream in two years about the "Secret Car Club" nonsense.

I think the ITAC members are right here. The ITAC is an extension of the CRB. I hate when people who have minority opinions on boards undercut a board’s decision.
I am sure that when it is published we could hear something like “some on the ITAC wanted to me more/less aggressive on the weight but all and all we are glad it is classified”
That is fair.
Besides no matter what the number is there will be nasty letters and that kind of shit storm keeps anything from getting done.

 

[seckerich]

It's probably no surprise that positions fell out into two camps:

** If you list it too heavy, nobody will build one and it will ruin ITR

** If you list it too light, everyone will build one and it will ruin ITR

Of course, I'm overstating just a LITTLE bit but you get the idea. I'll be most pleased if EVERYONE complains. That's my operational definition of consensus - everybody is pissed off.



K

You are half right as well Kirk. The consensus from the outside looking in is that right now ITR is "displaced BMW" with a few others mainly the Porsche that got a sweetheart weight in the process. Many of the other options are pig heavy and a waste of time to build. The S2000 builds will pick up as they drop in the used car market. These cars are too expensive to build on a whim that it might be competitive or it might get fixed if the weight is proven too high. The 300z is very popular but will not be built for that reason. I expect the RX8 will have the same fate. Shame.

 

[Knestis]

But why shouldn't the membership have just an active a role in the weight making decision at the ITAC level as the "do" at the CRB level?

I guess I mean, why not have the ITAC recommend a weight and open that weight up for comment before it goes to the CRB?

The more open the process is and the more opportunity to "test" the number yes, the more people can bitch in the short turn but the LESS they can scream in two years about the "Secret Car Club" nonsense.

Some of us ITAC'ers have talked (half seriously) about how nice it would be if members' requests were printed verbatim in FasTrack, along with the board responses. One didn't need to have any technical understanding of the RX8 to have predicted that, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow...

** All of the letters we received on the subject came from people either currently running ITR or planning on building an RX8

** All of the letters from current entrants were pretty sure that the RX8 needs to be really heavy, to avoid upsetting the applecart

** All of the letters from future (or current) RX8 builders were equally sure that it must NOT be heavy, to avoid the fate that Steve describes

Take a look again at the range Josh mentions. Every one of those values were from people who were POSITIVE that they had it right, and every one had a vested interest in the outcome.

Opening the weight to comment would only result in more of the same. And given that we continue to try VERY hard to use a repeatable system based on the best information available, lobbying really doesn't play a role in the decision.

I am PERSONALLY pretty confident that we got it right with our recommendation, after MUCH deliberation. We've documented where the math came from, so our assumptions are on record. I'm reasonably sure that the board will follow the ITAC suggestion. I'm HOPING that the current ITR entrants will feel a little threatened, and RX8 builders will be a little bummed. If either group is TOO happy, then something isn't quite the way we'd like.

K

EDIT

...I expect the RX8 will have the same fate. Shame.

I'd be curious to know why you have this expectation, Steve...

 

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, I generally agree with you on this one, and believe your analysis to be true on most cars. The process is what the process is.

The RX8 is different though, and that is because of the uncertainity as to stock hp and the "unknown" of what kind of gains the Renesis will make.

That's why I think you guys should have been more public about the assumptions you are using in setting the process weight. On this particular car there is extreme disagreement over those factors.

But I will stop on this. I trust you guys and the process and I hear where you are coming from. I would have done it differently, but it certainly could have turned out worse as a result.......

 

[RedMisted]

V6 Mustang in ITR

I thought I'd add my 2 cents about ITR car weights.
Yeah, it seems that the BMWs are ruling the ITR roost right now. They indeed are fast, esp. at the "handling" tracks.
But I just started racing a 1999 V6 Mustang in ITE. I'm in ITE because the car is still unfinished as far as ITR classification goes.
But knowing my car as I do now, and its future potential, I am reasonably certain that there's no way I could compete against the BMWs in ITR. It's just too heavy. Although the GCR specifies a minimum weight of only 2670 for my car, there's really no way in hades I could get to that weight as my 2912-pound car is virtually gutted.

 

[Ron Earp]

After reading through this thread and flip flopping one way or the other I now agree that it'd be a bad idea to publish the recommendations before the Fastrack. The proposal was written and submitted and subsequently discussed. I think the ITAC and the CRB will do the right thing and get the RX8s in at a proper weight for ITR. If Kirk's scenario plays out as he wrote then it'll probably be correct.

Now if we can get CRB to consider those V8 Pony cars, you know, the ones that this thread is about, we'd be making some progress!!!

Be interesting to see where both proposals go.

I'm not sure how we could have addressed the situation with some of the ITR cars not being built due to weight. The 300z is a great example at 222hp stock. It is a perfect car for ITR, certainly one of the bogeys that the class was benchmarked in although the 325i was the "must fit" car to be placed in R. However when other cars were put into ITR that were not wanted in ITS - Celica GTS, Type Arrghh Integra, and so on, then there wasn't much to be done with the 300z except for it to have a high weight as it is know that car is going to have class leading horsepower.

I suppose if a narrower subset of ITR cars were considered for the class and we eliminated the torqueless cars (Celica, Type R) and tweeners (the 325i could be one of those as would be the RX8) then the cars like the 300z would have lower weights and be more attractive.

Have to agree with you, ITR almost looks like Spec BMW on tracks around here.

R

 

[Knestis]

We made substantial progress on the V8 ITR conversation in our last two conference calls. It's a similar, although slightly more complex (read, "contentious") issue than was the RX8, but the fact that we were able to work through that leaves us with just the one complicated case to chug through.

Note that we actually resolved the MR2 to ITB on the last call, so ANYTHING seems to be possible...!

:026:

K

 

[GKR_17]

...and tweeners (the 325i could be one of those as would be the RX8)

Have to agree with you, ITR almost looks like Spec BMW on tracks around here.

You've got to be kidding. The original (overstated) hp, the Rx-8 was over the max hp for ITR.

As for ITR as spec BMW, that's because the cars were already here, and no one wants to race them in ITS anymore. I'm confident the E36 325's will be underdogs once the fields start to fill up. Especially if the Rx-8 comes in too light.

 

[JeffYoung]

ITR is also just going to be a "heavier" class than S or A. Bigger cars, more hp, newer cars and more weight.

I think this (along with cost) will be a reason why S and A stay healthy even with R present.

You are half right as well Kirk. The consensus from the outside looking in is that right now ITR is "displaced BMW" with a few others mainly the Porsche that got a sweetheart weight in the process. Many of the other options are pig heavy and a waste of time to build. The S2000 builds will pick up as they drop in the used car market. These cars are too expensive to build on a whim that it might be competitive or it might get fixed if the weight is proven too high. The 300z is very popular but will not be built for that reason. I expect the RX8 will have the same fate. Shame.

 

[Ron Earp]

You've got to be kidding. The original (overstated) hp, the Rx-8 was over the max hp for ITR.

As for ITR as spec BMW, that's because the cars were already here, and no one wants to race them in ITS anymore. I'm confident the E36 325's will be underdogs once the fields start to fill up. Especially if the Rx-8 comes in too light.

You are taking what I said out of context and maybe I wasn't clear.

If said IF one were to focus only on a subset of cars that could be put in ITR - the heavy hitters - 300z, 300i, Supra, V8 Pony cars, and so, on THEN cars like the 325i and RX8 would be tweeners.

As it is clearly the 325i and RX7s belong in ITR. And thanks for running the S2 so ITR isn't 100% spec BMW, hope you kick some ass with it.

R

 

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I bet you could predict the weight, knowing what you know on how the system works.

I fully expect equal amounts of grumbling from all sides on this.