PDA

View Full Version : May Fasttrack is out



Jake
03-24-2004, 01:21 PM
Comments from the peanut gallery?

JohnRW
03-24-2004, 01:44 PM
ITS Neon and Nissan owners are smiling. About time.

Shock rule - sanity corrects conflicted language.

Round 'Roccos could be the new killer car in ITC. Wish I still had mine.

'Ludes in B ? The Golf III's have some new competition.

All good signs that the CRB is making progress cutting thru the fog of the last 100 years.

Edit - fingers not connected to brain.

[This message has been edited by JohnRW (edited March 24, 2004).]

RR
03-24-2004, 02:03 PM
Coil-overs are now permitted. ITs about time!

Jake
03-24-2004, 02:11 PM
Greg - welcome to ITA. (about dang time!)

Dave, it looks like you are going to ITB even though they screwed up the specline. (good thing you never bought those 13x7 wheels!) You're car should do VERY well in ITB. Order those Hoosiers soon!

Can't wait to see how the Protege and Neons do with the CRX's.

Nice to see the 87 Toyota FX-16 go to ITB. Too bad the MR2 is "correctly classified" in ITA even though it is about the same weight and uses the same engine. I guess in the 15 years that the MR2 has been in IT, no one has explored its "performance potential"

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited March 24, 2004).]

gran racing
03-24-2004, 02:40 PM
Waaahooo! Yipee! (Dave jumping around the office and everyone wondering what new wonder drug I've just taken.)

Are these items final? I see that the IT Advisory Committee and the Club Racing Board is recommending that it be classified...what else needs to happen (other then correct the car's model year)?

Bet you can't tell I'm at all excited, now can you? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

gran racing
03-24-2004, 03:01 PM
And yes Greg, congrats!

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

924Guy
03-24-2004, 03:19 PM
Yeah, it seemed kinda odd to me also that they'd say the FX16 is obviously in the wrong class, yet the MR2 isn't! Doesn't add up, to me... But yes, it's a welcome sign.

Now let's remember all, it's not effective yet, now's the time to stoke the fires and tell the CRB what we think!

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

Banzai240
03-24-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by 924Guy:
Yeah, it seemed kinda odd to me also that they'd say the FX16 is obviously in the wrong class, yet the MR2 isn't! Doesn't add up, to me...

I've tried to argue this (to get the MR2 moved to ITB), but apparently, there are those that think otherwise... Sorry...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Jake
03-24-2004, 03:42 PM
My 2cents: Sure I'm pissed about the MR2 (not even a "we'll see how PCA pans out" or yeah, but we want to add some weight, but a flat denial!). Can I join Spec RX7, pleeeeasse?!!?

But that said, I think this is a huge move in the right direction for IT. What we are beginning to witness is a big (overdue) shuffle that will get a greater variety of cars in IT. ITA is begining to look a LOT like we envisioned IT2. For those who said this will NEVER happen.... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

Jake
03-24-2004, 03:50 PM
Thanks Darin. I guess I still don't get it. Do they think that having the engine in the back is like having another 20hp? (Putting my Kirk hat on).... I wish whoever made this final judgment (more like a nail in the coffin for ever running this inexpensive and fun car in IT) would justify why they think the MR2 is too fast for ITB.

On another note, anyone want to buy used MR2? Only driven on the weekends! Engine oil changed every 500 miles. Rare and expensive 14x7 wheels.

RSTPerformance
03-24-2004, 03:51 PM
WOW... very happy as well... people in my office are asking why I am smiling... then they come to my computer and see me looking for pictures of a Toyota FX-16...

I am very glad to see that things are changing as a WHOLE, not for any individual people or cars. (That has been my gripe in the past).

I don't see how anyone can comlain this month!!!

Raymond Blethen
RST Performance Racing

PS: Dave looking forward to racing with you, don't think we wont be watching you this year... next year lets catch those darn Volvo's!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

RSTPerformance
03-24-2004, 04:00 PM
Ok in the CRB recommendation it talks about weights (competition adjustments), reclassification and/or intake restrictors. It also indicates to me that the cars will be shuffled only for the first 4 years, after that no changes... Am I reading that right?

As of now there are reclassifications (even if we don't think their are their have been) so that is not my question, more so if weights can be changed after 4 years??? If not what is the plan with the current 4+-year-old cars?

Raymond Blethen

Greg Amy
03-24-2004, 04:11 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Waaahooo! Yipee!</font>

Ditto! I don't have time to read this thoroughly, but I'm likin' what I see...

Anyone want to buy a partially-built Spec Miata...?

Very cool.

<grin>

tderonne
03-24-2004, 04:47 PM
What has 5% more power and torque, .5" bigger brakes, 3% less weight, and 45% vs. 64% front weight than an FX16? Yup, MR2. All in a smaller, more aerodynamic package.

Not that the MR2 is an ITA car, just that even though it shares a similar motor with the FX16, they are not the same. Heck the oft glorifed power to weight ratio of the MR2 is almost 10% better than the FX16.

Just means the MR2 crowd needs to sharpen their pencils. The CRB has finally shown an openess to some rethinking!

gran racing
03-24-2004, 04:54 PM
Raymond - I'm looking forward to it as well. I still need to shave some time off to keep up with you, but have a little more motivation now. (I just hope the classification stays this way.)

Will you be at the LRP race on 5/9?

Jake, don't know what to say. You know how I feel - that your car should be in ITB.

As happy as I am about my specific reclassification, I am really happy with the way SCCA is moving.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

Jake
03-24-2004, 05:20 PM
td- actually the have the same hp and torque. The lower spec weight doesn't help if you can't get there. Sharpen pencils? How about empty our wallets? I have a friend who's got $30K in an MR2 already. (I don't want to go there...)

Ok, deep breath. These changes are for the good of all IT. I don't want to be "that guy". Greg - if you want out of the Spec Miata, send me an email. I may be interested.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited March 24, 2004).]

Banzai240
03-24-2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
...more so if weights can be changed after 4 years??? If not what is the plan with the current 4+-year-old cars?

Raymond Blethen

I'll try to explain this in type, though it's much easier to just tell you in person. It's not NEARLY as confusing as it sounds in writing...

The bottom line is that the language you are quoting specifically addressed NEW classifications. If you read carefully, you'll see that newly classified cars are subject to UNSOLICITED, or otherwise as-needed review by the CRB and adjustments can be made without a request being written, should initial specifications prove to miss the mark.

Otherwise, the mechanisnm is open to any car that clearly shows that it is misclassed, or that it's specifications are incorrect for it's current class. For example, if the MR2 is deemed too fast for ITB, but is clearly NOT competitive in ITA, then the CRB has the option, most likely pending a request, to make a weight adjustment to this car, or reclassify it. This mechanism is mostly meant to apply to overdogs, but it appears by the language used to be open to any car.

Basically, it simply gives the CRB the ability to adjusts weights for IT cars... something that traditionally hasn't been allowed.

The restrictor part was added by someone on the CRB, and I can't explain that part, except to say that, in my opinion, this would be an option that simply would almost never get used... That's just my opinion, but it's based on the feeling I get from the rest of the ITAC...

Hopefully this helps you better understand what is happening with this "PCA" proposal.

Keep your eyes peeled for more interesting news/developments... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif coming soon to a Fastrack near you!



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

joeg
03-24-2004, 06:07 PM
Show support by dropping a letter in the mail to Topeka; I just did!

Blix
03-24-2004, 06:11 PM
well gee greg...what kind of partially built SM and how far along? I might be interested...

Eric
NER SSM #12

Banzai240
03-24-2004, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
Are these items final...

Actually, the reclassifications, according to the wording they chose to use, are NOT final, unless the BoD approves the use of PCAs...

This is the result of the long standing "tradition" of not allowing cars to be reclassified WITH a weight adjustment. Apparently, adjusting weight has "traditionally" been considered a CA unto itself, and has been considered taboo to do when reclassifying a car in IT.

HOWEVER, I and others on the ITAC are in discussions with the CRB currently concerning this issue. There is a strong consensus (not all, but most of us) believe that the process of "re-classifying" a car actually INVOLVES and actually MANDATES re-evaluating the specifications of the car... In other words, when you classify a car, you pick a class and set an appropriate weight, so when you RE-classify a car, would you not do this again? There is further support for this line of thinking in the GCR. Don't have the number at hand at the moment, but I think it's 17.1.12 - Change of Specifications.

The bottom line is that most of us believe that, since reclassification is the only authorized form of CA in the ITCS, a proper definition of "re-classification" is as I've described above... As of the printing of this latest Fastrack, apparently the CRB has yet to be convinced.

We'll have to talk to then some more about it at tomorrows con-call! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

dickita15
03-24-2004, 08:21 PM
my understanding is that the bod has to vote gcr changes by august in order to make it into the next gcr without hassel so don't get to upset if they don't vote this right away.
while i am happy for those that got early reclassifications like dave and greg, the most important thing is that the CRB signed of on the whole concept of working to balance that competition in IT. we may live to regret this but at least we have a chance to make IT even better racing.
I would like to publicly thank the ITAC for all the work you guys have done so far.
dick patullo

Knestis
03-24-2004, 09:05 PM
Said it before and will probably say it again: The PCA thing will be fine right up until the first instance when one of those annual re-assessments is triggered by someone lobbying another someone with clout.

That out of the way, I'd like to congratulate the ITAC folks for their hard work shifting this ungainly operation into what amounts to the most significant change in IT rules since they were created. I REALLY hope that it works out positively.

Now, how about that ITA BMW Z3?

K

ITSRX7
03-24-2004, 09:06 PM
Thanks Dick. While the ITAC (and Darin inparticular) is working real hard on some of these issues, I personally hope that everyone sees a new undertow at the CRB level. So far, so good.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

gran racing
03-24-2004, 09:15 PM
Now I'm confused...
So these are only proposed changes? Got by the first round, but still have more to go?

And we'll have to wait till Aug. to know for sure? Hmmm. To buy 6" wide rims or 7" wide rims...

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

RSTPerformance
03-24-2004, 09:18 PM
My dad says that he wants to run the 3,000 lb Stratus...

The "old schooler" (hates change) also thinks that the changes will make IT a better place. He says Thank you http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Raymond

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited March 24, 2004).]

03-24-2004, 10:30 PM
Kirk wrote "Now, how about that ITA BMW Z3?"

that is a topic that deserves its own thread, ill start it with some thought and concerns over the "new ITA" class.

Geo
03-24-2004, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by JohnRW:
Edit - fingers not connected to brain.


Gee John, I thought through the nose was the shortest distance. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Hehe.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited March 24, 2004).]

Geo
03-24-2004, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
Now I'm confused...
So these are only proposed changes? Got by the first round, but still have more to go?

Dick is correct. These are proposals from the CRB to the BOD. The BOD must vote them into reality. This traditionally occurs at the August BOD meeting.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911
03-24-2004, 11:45 PM
Wow...this is HUGE!!!

See guys?? A year ago, (or less) there were a lot of naysayers, grumbling and whining, but lo and behold.....many prayers have been answered. I knew this was coming, but seeing it in print was still a shock!

This amounts to the biggest philosophical change that IT has ever seen.

A TON of behind the scenes work has gone on here, and both the CRB and the ITAC show that there have been major changes made in the "old school" way of thinking.

Indeed, the biggest concept I see here is that both boards listened to reason, and adopted a big picture view.

To respond to some thoughts:

-Yes, the Board of Directors needs to vote this into existance, so contact your favorite BoD person, and tell them what you think. The majority of these things pass, in my experience.

-So Dave, you lucky dog, go out and get 6".

-Sorry Jake, every time I had the chance when talking to anyone official, or just pontificating in general, I mentioned the MR2 as a candidate for reclass. Perhaps we have only seen the first round?

Congrats, Greg... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif (but hey, that's a personal agenda comment, as in, "Great, Gregs here!...now I can get my butt kicked by 11 guys rather than 10! (Unless some Neons or SE-Rs show up too...)
Yea, yea, yea, welcome to ITA shheeesh!

-The restrictor item was indeed placed by a sharp eyed CRB guy who has been around for a while, and thought that if there was going to be a change such as PCAs, why not think and allow for unforseen circumsatnces. Well, that's the party line at least! Word on the street has it that that specific line was added as a possible tool for the E36. Some have said that the cars is so fast that it would need a ton of weight...too much actually, so the restrictor could be used. Not sure if it will go down that way or not..

Which brings up my only question. These proposals create the need for some possible and possibly significant ballasting. What is the status of the ballast rule, is it being reconsidered?

Finally, another item caught my eye: the rejection of a open computer rule request. They turned it down for two reasons, the second being the possibility(!) that the change would benifit some more than others.
Well, at least they have learned form the errors of their ways on that one!!!

All in all, the most significant day in IT history since 1984.

Good job guys.

PS.....Funny how the earlier thread about the RX-7 class change never materialized into an actual change.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 24, 2004).]

ITSRX7
03-24-2004, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
What is the status of the ballast rule, is it being reconsidered?



The ballast rule was one of the first issues that the ITAC considered within the development of the PCA proposal. We have asked the CRB to look at different ways to increase the amount of ballast while retaining, and even improving, safety.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Banzai240
03-25-2004, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
The ballast rule was one of the first issues that the ITAC considered within the development of the PCA proposal. We have asked the CRB to look at different ways to increase the amount of ballast while retaining, and even improving, safety.

AB

I think I recall seeing some notes to the effect that the CRB was considering eliminating the ballast limit all-together, but don't quote me on that...

IT is the only class in the SCCA that has a limit on the amount of ballast, so safety, at least as far as the lead coming loose, really shouldn't be an issue. I think the real issue was making it possible for people to remove just about everything, then add the weight back... Not sure how this one will go yet, but I imagine it will be something workable that some will like, and that some won't! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bill Miller
03-25-2004, 08:39 AM
My hat's off to the ITAC folks, they've obviously been very buys. Haven't gotten a chance to fully digest the new information yet, but it looks like a quantum change for IT. I'm looking forward to going through it all more thoroughly, tonight.

I do have one question though. Maybe Darin or one of the other ITAC folks can speak to this. Two months ago, the request to reclassify the 1.7 Scirocco from ITB to ITC was shot down, because the 'car would be too fast'. Now there's a recommendation to move it to ITC in '05. I can only assume that they mean the 1.7 liter cars (even though the 1.7 never came in the '84 cars, and I don't believe it came in the '83 cars, but need to research this further). I'm curious as to why only the Mk II cars would be candidates of reclassification and not the Mk I car w/ the 1.7 ('81 Scirocco). They are essentially the same car. They are both built on the same chassis, and have the same engine/driveline. And, they are both spec'd at the same weight (2210#) in ITB. And why would they move the Sciroccos w/ the 1.7 and not the Rabbits w/ the same motor?

Again, this is under the assumption that they were only talking about the 1.7 cars. How does a car go from being too fast one month, and 2 months later it gets recommended for reclassification?

More, later, once I get to digest everything more.

Wait, a couple of last comments.

Shock rule - Good thing that is long over due!!! Nice job gang!

PCAs and ballast - Would seem to necessitate a change to the ballast rule

PCAs and the IT PP&I - Will the 'no guarantee' clause be removed, in light of PCAs? If not, PCAs are really in conflict w/ the PP&I.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

joeg
03-25-2004, 10:04 AM
HEY GUYS--IF YOU LIKE THE NEW RULES, WRITE A LETTER TO THE BOARD.

Showing support is not done (officially)through an Internet forum, no matter how neat this site is.

Banzai240
03-25-2004, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Again, this is under the assumption that they were only talking about the 1.7 cars. How does a car go from being too fast one month, and 2 months later it gets recommended for reclassification?

With a lot of long discussions and convincing, that's how! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

The other 1.7L cars are on the agenda to discuss tonight. I'm assuming that we'll have that settled shortly. The short answer as to why this happened this way is that, after the previous letters were shot down by the CRB, further letters came in, and in that time, we've had further discussions and they've changed their position.



PCAs and ballast - Would seem to necessitate a change to the ballast rule

We're still working on this one...


PCAs and the IT PP&I - Will the 'no guarantee' clause be removed, in light of PCAs? If not, PCAs are really in conflict w/ the PP&I.



It is the opinion of many on the ITAC that there will still be no "guarantee" of competitiveness. We can't possibly guarantee that you will have the ability to drive and prep a car.

What I think you will see (details still pending) is some wording added to the ITCS that will, in effect, say something along the lines of "we'll do our best to group cars with like mechanical potential", which is really the best we can do. There is no way to take into effect a driver's tallent, financial position, or prep-skills... We can, however, do a better job of getting cars matched as far as the CAR'S potential goes, and I think this would be the goal.

PCAs, then, would be a tool to allow for adjustments to the weight of a vehicle in the event of a fairly obvious mis-calculation or if we (the SCCA) miss the mark, which... let's be honest... is BOUND to happen from time to time. NO one intends for PCAs to be used to apply nit-picky weight adjustments to an Acura, just because it beat a VW on some specific day at the ARRC. HOWEVER, if there is a pattern of this happening (i.e.: Acuras all over the country consistently finish ahead of the VWs...) then perhaps that would be a case where some evaluation needs to take place...

These are just my opinion on how things are designed to work... The basic idea is that the CRB needs a tool to be able to adjust the weight of classifications that have missed the mark. PCAs allow for that.

Hopefully this answered your immediate questions... Feel free to follow-up if you need further clarification...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

ITSRX7
03-25-2004, 10:22 AM
Bill,

Thanks for the nice words - and I know this is going to kill you - but we all wark hard on this stuff, but Darin has really busted his nuts to cross the I's and dot the T's. My thanks to him and the CRB.

The VW question would have to go to the CRB. Most of the time, we hear their thoughts, post-recommendation but not always.

As far as PCA's and the no guarantee rules goes, they are mutually exclusive. We hope to have both. PCA's are not intended to be Production-style comp adjustments where every car is considered equaly.

I know that may sound harsh to some, but that truely is Pandora's box for IT. If PCA's are a resounding success and at some point there is a groundswell to expand their scope, I am sure the CRB would consider it.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

gran racing
03-25-2004, 11:40 AM
Darin,

I realize that Fas Track is not official till the first day of the month, but wanted to point out that this information needs some correction...(since you said you have yet another meeting tonight).

The ITA Honda Prelude (2nd generation) is really 1983 - 1987. The 1988 - 1991 Honda Prelude is the one being considered for reclassification to ITA from ITS. (Item 7)

I left Jermey at SCCA tech headquarters a message to clarify. Anything else need to be done? Also, both are the si models.

Item 6. Based on the performance
potential of the 1987-91 Honda Prelude,
the IT Advisory Committee and the Club
Racing Board is recommending that the
car be reclassified from ITA to ITB, effective 1/1/05.

I know others have said it, but we really do appreciate all of your effort (and I'm not just saying this because of how it impacts me directly). I really think this is the direction SCCA needs to move. Thanks again!

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

gran racing
03-25-2004, 01:52 PM
Jeremy called me back and provided clarification. Will correct minutes. (Also forwarded an e-mail to him and his supervisor about how helpful he has always been with my various questions - well deserved)



------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

Bill Miller
03-25-2004, 07:54 PM
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As far as PCA's and the no guarantee rules goes, they are mutually exclusive. We hope to have both.</font>

You lost me on that one Andy. And, I know Darin's been working hard, there was never a question of that.

Darin,

As I stated above (and have on previous occasions), the '84 Scirocco did not come w/ a 1.7 motor. No such animal. Came w/ the same 1.8 that the Rabbit GTI did. Also, interesting that there's a spec line in ITB for the '82-'84 Scirocco 1.7 and the '83-'88 Scirocco 1.8. Unlike the Rabbits in '83 and '84 (and subsequently the Golfs), where there were different models, w/ different engine/driveline configurations, in the same year, the same is not true for the Sciroccos in question(w/ the possible exception of an optional automatic tranny). I need to research it a bit more, but I don't even think the '83 cars came w/ a 1.7. But, I'm not 100% on that one, so I need to dig more. I'll be happy to give you more info offline, if you'd like.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
03-25-2004, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I need to research it a bit more, but I don't even think the '83 cars came w/ a 1.7. But, I'm not 100% on that one, so I need to dig more. I'll be happy to give you more info offline, if you'd like.



Bill and others... The data we work with is sometimes scarce, and it passes though many hands before getting back to being printed in Fastrack, so there are bound to be errors in Years, etc... If you see a descrepancy, by all means bring it to our attention... We try to get these things right, but you have to admit, VWs and Hondas can be a little confusing as to model years, engine combos, etc...

The general intent is to get the VW examples with 1.7L engines, currently lumbering in ITB into ITC where they (in my opinion) belong... Whatever information you have that could help us clarify which ones that is would be most useful and gladly accepted...




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

lateapex911
03-25-2004, 08:44 PM
Bill, look at it this way...there is still no guarantee!....but they now have the means to try harder.

So, some things will be better, some will be worse. Hopefully the net will be an improvement, and I think it will.

People refer to this as the opening of Pandoras box, and I see their concept. But it doesn't apply here. In the fable the world was perfect until the box was opened right? Well, is IT perfect? Don't think so.

I think that we will have the mechanism to improve things, and if we have some integrity in the positions of power, we will see it applied fairly.

Kirks point is understood, but remember, this is a checks and balances system. At least this way we have a shot at correcting any politically influenced intital classings and weight settings.

I also like how they spelled out the fact that they set the initial weight with the intent of making the car copetitive within its class. Thats new, and while thats the way it's actually been happening, it is good to see it in black and white.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 25, 2004).]

ITSRX7
03-25-2004, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
You lost me on that one Andy.

My bad. It sounded weird to me as I read it back to myself.

PCA's give the CRB the tools to make changes as they see fit. The goal is not to flow PCA's to every car in every class - so the no guarantee piece still fits. A "give my car a weight break and I will be competitive" request will always be read and responed to but the Production type effort isn't going to be there - I hope!

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller
03-25-2004, 11:58 PM
Darin,

I'll try and put together something for you.

I guess I'm w/ Kirk on this. I'm very concerned by the subjective nature of the process. If they're going to go through the effort to generate a simulation, or at the very least, assign ratings for the things they'll look at, why not publish that information?

The fact that the mood of the BoD/CB changes w/ the people, pretty much demands that an open, objective process be put in place, least it be corrupted in the future.

Jake, I'm not convinced that that's how it's been done all along. Maybe some cars by some CBs, but I don't think it's been that way all the time. Which actually goes to my point above.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Catch22
03-26-2004, 01:05 AM
I guess this is largely asked of Darin...
So if I'm digesting all of this right, the new rules would basically work like this...

And I'll use the aforementioned Scirocco as an example:
-1.7 Scirocco that is currently uncompetitive in ITB is reclassed to ITC (is it safe to assume that weight will be added to ensure it doesn't become an immediate ITC overdog?).
-After 2 years the classification weight is revisited to see if it was appropriate. It is adjusted (or not) accordingly.
-Same thing happens again after 4 years.
-After that, car is classed at set weight and can be expected to stay there.

Is this about right? Looking at recent listings for reclasses of the Neons and such it looks like some safety poundage was added from the get-go. I'm assuming this would be the basic approach for all of the reclasses???

Thanks again to all involved. I've been involved with rule writing and car classing before and it isn't much fun. The effort is needed and appreciated.

Geo
03-26-2004, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
What I think you will see (details still pending) is some wording added to the ITCS that will, in effect, say something along the lines of "we'll do our best to group cars with like mechanical potential", which is really the best we can do. There is no way to take into effect a driver's tallent, financial position, or prep-skills... We can, however, do a better job of getting cars matched as far as the CAR'S potential goes, and I think this would be the goal.

Darin, I think this is exceptionally well put.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Banzai240
03-26-2004, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by Catch22:
Is this about right? Looking at recent listings for reclasses of the Neons and such it looks like some safety poundage was added from the get-go. I'm assuming this would be the basic approach for all of the reclasses???

Thanks again to all involved. I've been involved with rule writing and car classing before and it isn't much fun. The effort is needed and appreciated.

I think that is basically about it...

As for the Neons... It's not really "safety poundage" at all... Some assumptions were made, as is necessary to begin the process of selecting a weight, but pretty much ALL of the reclassifications/classifications that have been suggested, as well as those coming, have been done using the same process...

As the PCA proposal states, we are looking at manufacturer's stated power numbers and specifications, and making some assumptions based on IT-Prep as to the potential of the cars. The cars are compared to others "standard" cars for the perspective class, and weights are developed based on that standard...

I know this is a little vague, but it's all I can offer at this point. Hopefully you can all be satisfied at the moment that each of these cars has had some assumptions made about them and then each treated to the SAME process for determining weights... Some of these may miss the mark a bit, but I really don't think they are THAT far off. Certainly there will be those that prove to be a little heavy, but better a little too much in that direction and IN the CORRECT CLASS, than the other direction and in the WRONG class... Look at it this way... minimum weights ought not be a problem to achieve! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

The DOHC Neon may look a little heavy, but keep in mind that it makes 150hp out of the box... 10 more than the 240SX, and it has shown that it has potential for better performance... When you compare it's specifications with that of the 240SX, the recent Acura additions, the Honda, etc... I'll think you'll see that with IT prep, it should be a really decent ITA car...

The SOHC car makes 138hp out of the box, only 2 LESS than the 240SX, and is classified 80lbs lighter... It too, should be a really good ITA car...

I hope that most will agree that efforts are being made to at least hit the right class, and interest in racing IT has suddenly been improved...

Stay tuned...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bill Miller
03-26-2004, 08:14 AM
Darin,

Please tell us a little more about this process. Who developed it, and why hasn't it been published? After all, there have been numerous requests made to have this information published.

Also, I don't think expects driver ability/budget/prep skills to ever factor into the equation for setting a car's specs. Single examples should never be used as a basis for adjustments.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
03-26-2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,
Please tell us a little more about this process. Who developed it, and why hasn't it been published?

Basically, it's already published in this months Fastrack... Don't go looking for a formula, because there isn't one. If you look at the PCA proposal, it outlines the factors considered....

Essentially, we estimate the IT-prepped HP level, multiply that times a target wt/pwr ratio for the class, then make some judgement calls based on the other specifications...

WHAT the target wt/pwr ratio is really doesn't matter, because the same is used for all the cars being considered for a particular class, so it's a constant (I guess that means it could factor out of any "equation"...) The target is choosen based on analysis of the top several cars in each class...

You aren't likely to see anything really official on this published, because, quite frankly, it's a work in progress and we still have yet to see if it's a reasonable way to do things... Hopefully you can all agree that we ought to see if this is going to work before getting too carried away.

As to who developed it... well, the ITAC did, and all we are doing is using this process to come up with some recommended weights... The final stamp get's put on the by the CRB. But, so far, I hope most will agree upon careful examination, that what we've come up with so far is pretty reasonable, and hopefully in the ballpark. I think, honestly, that that is about the best you can expect without REAL dyno numbers and a very detailed analysis...

And YES, there is still subjectivity involved, but I think that, on a whole, this method will give each car a fair shake by starting from a similiar baseline. From there, there has to be the ability to make some judgement calls, because numbers alone don't tell the whole story.

So, please understand that this is NOT a formula... it's essentially a guideline, or process, or method, of getting some starting point numbers that allows us to look at the outcome and ask "is this reasonable..." (for example, in predicting output... is this <enter example car here> really capable of producting XXX output???)...

It's early, so hopefully that explains what we are trying to do to your satisfaction... Hopefully, upon examining the results thus far, you'll agree that we seem to be coming up with some reasonable numbers, or, at the very least, numbers that can be clearly explained...

The bottom line is that, as I said previously, we are trying to match the mechanical abilities of the cars as closely as possible, based on actual specifications and real-world experience. I think that's about the best we are going to be able to do. If PCAs happen, then we will have the ability to correct any mistakes we have made, but I honestly believe that they may be few. Hopefully the future proves that assumption to be correct...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 26, 2004).]

gran racing
03-26-2004, 11:18 AM
Darin – as for the vehicle’s years and models, yes, it definitely gets confusing. Here I am being a Honda Prelude guy and didn’t realize that the 2nd generation Honda prelude si was only made in ’86 & ’87. Most Honda people that I’ve spoken with always say ’83 – ’87 which represents the 2nd gen. preludes (just not the si models). Yes, I know it was just ignorance on my behalf but I never really looked into it / didn’t really care too much.

Getting the cars into the right class even if the weight is a bit high is still great! How much can people really complain about their car moving from a class where it was totally uncompetitive to a class where it could be competitive even if the weight is a little high? I am certainly not going to.

I do hope the ballast rules change. For those cars that believe the weight is too high (or could get it much lower), at least this way they can choose where the weight will be. My car for example is extremely front heavy! Hmmm, guess I can’t put the “factor” heavy subwoofers and bass tube back in the trunk with the 2 spare tires. (Kidding…)

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

Banzai240
03-26-2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
I do hope the ballast rules change.


It is my understanding the the Ballast rule is being considered as part of the PCA proposal. I don't have all the details, but do recall seeing something to the effect of just removing the 100lb limit... Again, don't quote me on that, because there is a lot of time between now and August, and things could change... (I know... I hate waiting too! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )

A lot of this is going to be up to your BoD members, so you might want to drop them a line and let them know how please you are with the recent announcements and that you hope the trend continues and encourage their support...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

gran racing
03-26-2004, 12:34 PM
Sounds good.

Do they prefer e-mail or hard copies? Wouldn't imagine it matters, but just checking. (Do you have a physical address to send them off?)

The e-mail address I found is:
[email protected]

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

Jake
03-26-2004, 12:56 PM
Dave, keep in mind the way the ballast rules are written, they dictate where you can put the ballast. I beleive it is on the passenger floorboard which won't help you much. If you want to balance your car better, don't ballast. Start putting stuff back into the trunk like the Spare (full-sized?), jack, trunk trim, etc.

Bill Miller
03-26-2004, 07:40 PM
Darin,

Thanks for the info. I'm curious, do the words "Miller Ratio" mean anything to you? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Seriously, if the same power factor is used for all cars in a class, why not publish it? As Kirk, I, and others have said before, someone should be able to look at a car they want to build, and have a decent idea where the weight will fall (say +/- 50#). And really, I think that's all Kirk, I, and others ever figured, was that 'the formula', would be a decent approximation, w/ a reality check at the end.

Keep up the good work!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

ITSRX7
03-26-2004, 07:56 PM
Bill,

It's a great question. One for a 400-level Philosophy class.

The issue IMHO (not speaking for anyone else) is that when you publish a formula or a 'process', you will have everyone plugging there classified car into it and screaming bloody murder if the numbers don't work for them.

As Darin has stated, his work shows that the E36 is about 150 pounds light, and the RX-7 to be a few pounds heavy. What do you propose we do? Is it a massive recalc of everything or can we agree to use it in a new classification or reclass situation only?

While I would love to be in the know, I honestly feel it only causes bad blood - because the current group may or may not be able to defend past classifications because we wern't around then.

I know this sounds like a cop-out, but *I* feel the process has too many subjective factors for it to make anyone happy by looking at it at face-value. It ends up being an educated guess based on some numbers - there is NO way you can make it a hard and fast formula.

I know you are gonna rip me for this but it's how I really feel. If I were building a car that wasn't classed (or planning on building one), I would think that a letter to the ITAC requesting an ESTIMATE would be entertained - obviously with no guarantee it would come out that way but at least you might be in the ballpark.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

gran racing
03-27-2004, 10:32 AM
Andy, I don't think it sounds like a cop-out. There are certain things that should be left up to those that are elected to that position. Otherwise why have them in that position? Should a person be able to explain the basic rationale of the decision? Yes of course. But as you've said there are subjective pieces to this equation.

I am a type of person that also really wants to know why this, why that, what are the specific reasons...so it isn't like I don't care. If there was a written mathematical formula for these decisions, I too would want to know. But there isn't.
(sp correction)
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[This message has been edited by gran racing (edited March 27, 2004).]

Ron
03-27-2004, 06:23 PM
The weight addition/subtraction game is fine, if you can take weight off. My ITB Mustang is 200 pounds over weight and I have done all that is possible to get it down to weight. What am I to do if SCCA gives me a weigt break? All the talk has been about moving cars down or taking away weight is there any talk about improving car performance with either a larger carb or more compression? They spoke of a restrictor to slow some down, what about a slight performance gain.

ITSRX7
03-27-2004, 07:01 PM
Ron,

I would say those ideas are not on the horizon for IT currently. That gets us really pointed toward Production-style adjustments - and I think I can safely say that the majority is VERY against that.

If the car can't get to legal weight AND it is way outclassed, it sounds like a candidate for a re-class. Make a solid case, provide some facts and submit to the CRB.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller
03-27-2004, 07:18 PM
Andy,

I'm not going to rip you a new one. On the contrary, I appreciate your position. Problems arise when you see things in FasTrack stating that the weight has been reviewed (by the ITAC), and deemed correct. Or, when weights are 'corrected'. If you can't tell me how you got to the initial point, how can you tell me that it's correct, or needed to be corrected? That's pretty much where I've been w/ this one, since day one.

And I, like others, would be willing to accept that specs are set on a car by car basis. Just get an official position to that effect published. There is part of the problem. Don't want to piss anyone off w/ a car by car determination (too open to "favors"). Also don't want to have to explain how each car got to where it's at. But, also want to make it 'seem' like it's objective, and not subjective. By not publishing anything, they can't be pinned down.

I still don't get how cars had their weights 'corrected', after they had been classified for over a year. There's no provision in the current rules for doing that. Like it or not, those are the rules that we all have to live by. But, when you get some cars 'corrected', and other cars shot down, all w/ no explanation whatsoever, it gives the appearence of something that's less than above board. I've asked that question on several occasions, and have yet to get a straight answer. How can you 'correct' a car (under today's rules), that has been classified for over a year?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Jake
03-27-2004, 08:58 PM
Bygones Bill, bygones... let them be. A lot of sh%t was wrong before, but the ITAC and CB have brought us a brave new world of IT. In the future, a weight can be changed without hiding under the blanket statment "corrected." Times they are a-changing.

If you want to complain about stuff, you should probably look forward and through the May Fasttrak. There is a certain quote about "Considering the performance
potential of the car, it is correctly classified now." that doesn't quite sit right with me. However, I Rome wasn't built in a day - and there have been huge strives taken that we all can appreciate.

ITSRX7
03-27-2004, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
How can you 'correct' a car (under today's rules), that has been classified for over a year?


I don't see any provision for it, currently - unless it falls under errors and ommisions. What are the most recent examples and maybe Darin and I can shed some light? I don't know of any off the top of my head.

As far as being above board, you know my stance on this. IT is so far from Production in that respect. There is no motivation for any wrong-doings. It is my FIRM and TRUE belief that these groups do what they think is best for IT. The groups in place now have seen the need for a fresh look and I feel lately from this board that the results are starting to show and are appreciated.

But lets go back to one of Kirk's issues from a year ago - PCA's is the next step - and the SCCA has to PROVE they can use them effectivly - THEN we will have turned the ship in the right direction.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

oanglade
03-27-2004, 10:01 PM
Long overdue!

Great job guys!



------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Bill Miller
03-28-2004, 02:03 AM
Andy,

The most recent examples that I can give you off the top of my head were the VR6 Corrado and VR6 Jetta in ITS. Both were listed in the '02 GCR. Corrado got changed last year, and the Jetta was w/in the last few months.

Jake,

I have no problem w/ letting bygones be bygones, just as long as they'll come out and officially admit how it was done in the past. And actually, the Jetta 'correction' was done under the current ITAC/CB's watch.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

lateapex911
03-28-2004, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,


I have no problem w/ letting bygones be bygones, just as long as they'll come out and officially admit how it was done in the past. And actually, the Jetta 'correction' was done under the current ITAC/CB's watch.



Hope you're good at holding you're breath!



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

ITSRX7
03-28-2004, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

The most recent examples that I can give you off the top of my head were the VR6 Corrado and VR6 Jetta in ITS. Both were listed in the '02 GCR. Corrado got changed last year, and the Jetta was w/in the last few months.

Here is my recollection:

As I always do in any form of racing I have done, I scour the rulebook to see if there are any unique cars that seem to have been untapped. While looking at the VR6 Corrado at 2680, it occurred to me that would be a GREAT car in IT trim at the same weight as an RX-7. I noticed in a previous GCR that the car was listed at 2850. I sent a letter in for clarification. Came back and an error/ommission and was corrected.

Then I saw that the Jetta was still at 2980!?!? THAT didn't seem correct either, so I pointed that out as well. To be honest, I hadn't looked at the Jetta this year as I think the Corrado would be the logical choice for the best of breed.

I would ASSUME the Jetta was a correction as well but if you need to know, I would ask the CRB on that one.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller
03-28-2004, 12:06 PM
Andy,

Where did you originally see the VR6 Corrado @ 2680#?

And, IIRC, the Corrado weight was 'corrected' [sic] based on a request, and information provided by a member that raced/wanted to race one. Yet similar requests have met w/ the 'correct as specified' canned response. All I've ever asked for is an explanation as to how these determinations are made. How can one car be correct and another not, if now details/explanation are given? And, a lot of people say that perception is reality. Well, w/o an open process, the door is open for the perception of impropriety.

And Jake, I'm not holding my breath for anything. I don't need to let bygones be bygones. But, that group will never get any credibility from me (not that they could care less) until they do. We keep hearing about how there's new blood on the CB/AC, etc. Well, it takes sack to stand up and say that the people the came before you made mistakes, but you're going to work to correct them. It's not about bashing anyone, just owning up to what happened.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

ITSRX7
03-28-2004, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

Where did you originally see the VR6 Corrado @ 2680#?


I orginally saw it in the 2003 GCR. The 2002 version had it at 2850. That is why I asked for a clarification (which weight was the mistake). They came back to me with the answer that 2680 was correct. *I* am assuming that they made the correction under errors and ommissions the winter of 2002 - obviously before the 2003 GCR went to print.

That is the obvious answer. What else do you want to know that you think the current (18 mos) ITAC can answer on that subject.

I think you need to write the CRB a letter, asking them about the whole issue.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

slickS14
03-28-2004, 03:37 PM
Darin, why no weight reduction on the s-14 240sx in its? I see the ita s-13 got a break. The s-14 is 2650 as you know but 240z with same displacement something like 2400....thats with a six to boot! The s-14 in world challenge ran 2500 even, thats more like it. Any further changes in the works?

ITSRX7
03-28-2004, 04:03 PM
The S13 in ITA got a weight break?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

slickS14
03-28-2004, 06:21 PM
I apologize, severe mis-post on my previous reply! I misread, the weight change was in e-prod. I may not be able to read but I can count...we're (240sx) till too heavy!

Banzai240
03-28-2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by slickS14:
Darin, why no weight reduction on the s-14 240sx in its? I see the ita s-13 got a break.

The S-13 got a weight break for PRODUCTION... As far as I can tell, nothing in IT has gotten a "weight break" anytime recently...


<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The s-14 in world challenge ran 2500 even, thats more like it. Any further changes in the works?</font>

Well, if the WC cars were allowed to run at 2500lbs... I can all but guarantee you that they never achieved that weight... My car was one of the Nissan factory cars, and it crosses the scales at over 2700lbs, with more stuff removed than they ran in WC... I have very little doubt that these cars will NEVER get much below their minimum weight in ITS, if that is even achievable...

As for anything in the works... Not to my knowledge, and if there was, I would steer completely clear of it, other than to provide information/specs if asked...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 28, 2004).]

Bill Miller
03-28-2004, 07:18 PM
Andy,


The VR6 Corrado was listed in the '00 GCR at 2850# (although, there were no other specs for the car). And I guess the FasTrack notation was back in '02, I'd have to go look. Regardless, the car had been classified for over a year, outside the 'adjustment' window. Under the current rules, the 'correction' was not authorized. And, I did ask about it. Never got any kind of answer whatsoever.

And C'mon Darin, no recent weight breaks in IT? What else do you call what the ITS VR6 Jetta got? Of all the classes where the Golfs and Jettas run together, ITS is now the only class where they have the same spec weight. And that's only the VR6 cars. In ITS, ITA and ITB, the Jettas weigh more.

ITS - Golf II 2.0 16v 2220#
ITS - Jetta II 2.0 16v 2530#

ITA - Golf III 2.0 8v 2350# (now an ITB car)
ITA - Jetta III 2.0 8v 2480#

ITB - Golf II 1.8 8v 2280#
ITB - Jetta II 1.8 8v 2330#

ITB - Rabbit 1.7 8v 2000#
ITB - Jetta I 1.7 8v 2080#

Note: All of the above data are from the '02 GCR (what I had handy). How was matching the weight of the ITS VR6 Jetta to that of the ITS VR6 Golf anything else but a weight break (not to mention a violation of the rules)?

Also interesting to note, the A3 2.0 Golf was moved from ITB, to ITA, yet the Jetta version is still in ITA.


I'm really not trying to pick a fight here, but I'm tired of people pissing in my ear and telling me that it's raining.

Darin and Andy (and George),

The VR6 Jetta adjustment was made on your watch, how do you guys justify it, w/in the current rules, based on the above data?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Knestis
03-28-2004, 07:38 PM
To be fair, Bill - this is the first time in IT history that there has been tacit confirmation that weights are set based on the competition potential of individual models, or to adjust them.

Until now, there's been a suggestion - or pretense - that the OE curb weight had something to do with the IT spec weight. This makes it logical that the Jetta consistently be heavier than the Golf, for each generation.

Because there has been no provision in the rule for adjustment to level competition, weight changes have been conveniently called "corrections," allowed under E&O even when the people making the correction have had NO way to explain why it was made or based on what data.

WRT the MkIII Jetta not being moved to B? Easy - nobody asked. This is where I have one big concern - that the PCA system still requires someone to pull the trigger: There is still no mandate for any comprehensive view of what is consistent and what isn't.

In addition, while we (may) have the system in place to actually make above-board weight adjustments to level competition, there is still no (a) quantitative system in place to do so, or (B) mandate that the people doing the adjustments - or denying them - explain their thinking.

I'm going to continue to be optimistic but I have my worries about the lack of change on these fronts, in concert with the proposed PCA allowance.

K

ITSRX7
03-28-2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Darin and Andy (and George),

The VR6 Jetta adjustment was made on your watch, how do you guys justify it, w/in the current rules, based on the above data?



This action was done independant of the ITAC. It never hit an agenda and was never a topic of discussion. While it did happen during our tenure, I would hardly say it happened on our 'watch'. We can only affect things that we bring to the CRB or they bring to us. This was something that was done before we knew it was an issue. I suspect the errors and ommissions are done at the CRB level.

Your not going to take the stance that the SCCA favors VW's are you? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller
03-29-2004, 01:59 AM
Because there has been no provision in the rule for adjustment to level competition, weight changes have been conveniently called "corrections," allowed under E&O even when the people making the correction have had NO way to explain why it was made or based on what data.



Actually Kirk, I'm not sure how 'corrections', made more than a year after a car is classified, are allowed under E&O. And what happened when they 'corrected' the weight of the E36 BMW? The BMW folks screamed 'comp. adjustment', and the CB folded. What I do find interesting, is that you essentially agree w/ my position, that the people making the rules and decisions, disregard and circumvent those same rules. I'm inclined to agree w/ you, I'm not sure anything will be any different w/ PCA's.

Andy,

How many times have requests for weight changes been sent to the ITAC for review? Why would the CB all of a sudden, take it upon themselves to change the weight of the two cars in question? And one by 300#!

Also, just another reason why minutes of CB meetings should be published in FasTrack. And another reason why the classification/specification process needs to be open and public. This whole thing really is a fiasco, and I have no faith that any of that will change w/ PCAs. Subjective classification/specification process and subjective changes. To quote the Prod board, Hubberbucket!!!!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Banzai240
03-29-2004, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Actually Kirk, I'm not sure how 'corrections', made more than a year after a car is classified, are allowed under E&O.

If you read GCR section 17.1.12 (2004... was 17.1.11 in 2003), you'll realize that the provisions for changing specifications are in reference to the realization that the originally set "advanced estimates of performance prove to be "grossly inaccurate". That part has NOTHING to do with E&O... Now, I'm sure where in the GCR E&O is handled or addressed, if it is at all, but I find it difficult to believe that there is a time limit on fixing a mistake or making a correction...

If someone has the section of the GCR that handles E&O, could you please post it so I can go read up on this?

Thanks,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Scooter
03-29-2004, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
This whole thing really is a fiasco, and I have no faith that any of that will change w/ PCAs. Subjective classification/specification process and subjective changes. To quote the Prod board, Hubberbucket!!!!

Fiasco? What are you talking about? There is no magic formula that will make cars evenly matched every time. It takes the good-faith efforts of a bunch of people who now have better tools to work with to fix the obvious inequities in the system.

I know that starting this type of conversation is stupid. But I'm kind of tired of hearing this type of monotonous, angry, slander from someone who doesn't even race in IT. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I really don't understand where you're coming from, and I don't understand how your remarks can be construed as positive.

ITSRX7
03-29-2004, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

How many times have requests for weight changes been sent to the ITAC for review? Why would the CB all of a sudden, take it upon themselves to change the weight of the two cars in question? And one by 300#!

Also, just another reason why minutes of CB meetings should be published in FasTrack. And another reason why the classification/specification process needs to be open and public. This whole thing really is a fiasco, and I have no faith that any of that will change w/ PCAs. Subjective classification/specification process and subjective changes. To quote the Prod board, Hubberbucket!!!!



We get copied on numerous weight-change requests. This, as you know, is not currently allowed in the rules under normal circumstances so we recommend on very few. If, however, someone said that a certain car was WAY heavy and provided fresh VTN sheets, we would recommend that the CRB compare the two sets of sheets and determine if a mistake was made - if there was, a correction should be made, if not, then obviously no.

The CRB is 100% responsible for managing the VTN sheets and utilizing 'errors and ommissions' to correct mistakes. Not competition potential mistakes like some would argue the E36 Bimmer is, but let's say a spec is out of whack.

We just got a letter this round asking us to correct the front disc size of the ITA 2002tii. It looks like it is in the GCR wrong. If the CRB corrects it under errors and ommissions, are you going to freak out, or is THAT acceptable?

I disagree 100% that it is a fiasco. *I* think there are improvments to be made, and I will fight for them. If you have no faith in the system - and haven't had for some time apperantly - why waste your fingertips here?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

zracer22
03-30-2004, 03:40 PM
I had to laugh at the request to add 150 pounds to ALL of the BMWs in ITS. I wasn't aware that my E30 had too much power for it weight!