Adjustments

[Knestis]

To put this in context, you need to know that I just wrote an note this weekend to the CRB endorsing - sight unseen - the strategic realignment plan put forth by the ITAC. Please not that this does NOT mean that I don't still have misgivings about what the current ITAC ajustment schema might become if it gets out of hand.

This quote is from my other favority racing board - http://www.honda-tech.com/zeropost?cmd=tshow&id=1436656 - and suggests that we get closer to the edge of the slippery slope every time someone has a conversation about race weights:


Jeremy [Thoennes, apparently] said that they would look at results if i did race this car to see about giving the car a weight break if it needed it and it does sound like it. so by the time i run mid-pack if i do that and get comfortable with the car. and Hopefully they will give me a weight break to be competitve and in a couple seasons be a top driver ( dreaming and hopen here).

The car in question is the early '90s Protege LX, listed at a too-fat 2510 pounds in ITA (if my informration is correct).

Now, I understand that we are playing telephone here - someone said that Club Racing said - but even the SUGGESTION that we will get to experiences real Competition Adjustments (blech) makes me want to take a scalding hot shower, to wash off the ickiness.

BE CAREFUL PLEASE, ITAC folks. You might have your best efforts yanked out from under you. If this happens, it's going to righteously PO a lot of people who supported your efforts on the assurance that we wouldn't go there.

K

[Bill Miller]

Just the hint that people are getting that kind of policy information from Topeka makes my skin crawl. And the fact that people are interpreting whatever is being said as the potential for getting traditional comp. adjustments is really a bad thing. Like Kirk said, a lot of people are going to be plenty pissed if some kind of bait and switch is pulled.

/edit/ Kirk, love the Hondatech avatar, looks just like you!! :023: :P

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 21 2005, 02:42 PM

BE CAREFUL PLEASE, ITAC folks. You might have your best efforts yanked out from under you. If this happens, it's going to righteously PO a lot of people who supported your efforts on the assurance that we wouldn't go there.

K

66122


He should have contacted me or the ITAC instead... We would have told him that "sure, we'll look at the results... the results of the dyno runs, detailed build sheets, development level, etc..."...

I'll say it again... Race Results are NOT a basis for making adjustments...

Further, the ITAC is working to get OUT of the business of making adjustments to IT... Once some things get sorted out, there shouldn't be a need to make further adjustments to this class... at least not from a specifications and classifications standpoint... with the exception, of course, of classifying new cars to the class...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 21 2005, 11:11 AM

Further, the ITAC is working to get OUT of the business of making adjustments to IT... Once some things get sorted out, there shouldn't be a need to make further adjustments to this class... at least not from a specifications and classifications standpoint... with the exception, of course, of classifying new cars to the class...

66134



:happy204:

[Knestis]

I told him in that strand to get in touch with the ITAC and, in hindsight, should have provided your email. It's a little unclear, I think, from the information provided on the SCCA site, how to get in touch with you so the Club Racing office becomes the source of answers. Look for example at how many times posters here have emailed Jeremy asking for rules clarifications, even though there is - to my knowledge - NO official system or precedent providing for that course of action.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that there is any active bait-and-switch going on here. It's a reality of policy implementations that their creators can lose control of them, as others in an organization repurpose them for their own uses.

Kirk (who's put his avatar here, too so people will be able to identify him at the track)

[JeffYoung]

Holy smokes! That is KIRK!

Kirk, I've got a note from Jake somewhere laying out for me what the ITAC is trying to do - a ONE TIME correction to about 40 cars' weight and classification using a weight/horsepower/intangibles formula (it is NOT based on race results).

I'm very comfortable that this is what these guys are trying to do. If others within the SCCA are garbling that some in communicating it to members, well, that's a risk you always get in dealing with large organizations.

I'll forward Jake's note to you.

Jeff

[Bill Miller]

Hey Jeff,

Don't say 'forumla', it makes Darin all cranky!! :lol: :bash_1_: :P

Sorry Darin, couldn't resist. :lol:

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 21 2005, 01:34 PM
...who's put his avatar here, too so people will be able to identify him at the track...

66149
Worked for me. :)

[ddewhurst]

***Don't say 'forumla', it makes Darin all cranky!!***

Bill, ya need to be careful using that word "forumla". One of your friends on another site has the ONLY forumla that WORKS. Ya sure!!!! Just ask him. ;)

[lateapex911]

I don't even know HOW to say F-o-r-u-m-l-a......

Now, Formula....well THATs different.

Yes I shot Jeff, and Kirk a note explaining the basics and asking for letters to the CRB and their local BoD guys in support of our general direction and work up to date, and/or a vote of confidence on the basics of the proposal.

As I explained it to them, it utilizes the oft referred to "process", and I explained what the process takes into account, as has been explained on these pages numerous times.

Thanks to them for considering, and actually taking the time to draft thoughtful and well written letters of support.

Others have too, but as they haven't indicated their desire to be publicly thanked, I'll just keep their names secret!

I will say again, that if any of you like the idea of a general re-org and have confidence that the direction is appropriate, please send a quick e-mail to the CRB and your Bod guy. You really don't have to say the proposal is the best, nor even that you support the actual items contained with-in. Merely a letter commenting on the general direction is fine. And if you are in disagreement with it, well that should be known too.

Thanks guys, and NO, the idea of Fred calling in and getting a weight break will NOT happen!

That said, history has shown that even the best intentions can go awry. I can forsee instances where factory HP was underquoted, and the "process" relies on accurate data to work. In such a "garbage in-garbage out" case, I would imagine another look at the car would be wise...but thats a case of a clear cut error.

In any event, it is our mantra to make instances like that rare, and once things get settled down, even rarer.

[JRDbuilt]

I am the person who originally posted that on Honda-tech and those are the words i heard from Jeremy due to a question i called him about regarding the weight. If there is someone on here i should talk to please let me know!


thanks
CJ

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by JRDbuilt@Nov 21 2005, 08:09 PM
I am the person who originally posted that on Honda-tech and those are the words i heard from Jeremy due to a question i called him about regarding the weight. If there is someone on here i should talk to please let me know!
thanks
CJ

66213


Any and all letters concerning IT cars hould be sent to:

[email protected]

In the subject line, list Attn: ITAC, and a subject, like "Please correct race weight on Borgward Special 3.0"

IF you are requesting a change to a car you are driving, and feel it isn't currently competitive, take a deep breath, and be prepared to tell us why. List your efforts, send in dyno sheets, list components used to get to the level of power you have, tires, races, guys who are nationaly known you've run against, their tires that day, the qualifying times and conditions (drafts?) and so on...

In other words, even the most well documented, well developed, open and shut case won't be able to have the credibility needed to warrant a change...on it's own.....rather, it will add to the collective knowledge, and it could be helpful in signaling an issue with that particular car where the process has not worked as it should.

If that is indeed the case the car will be looked at and the facts reconsidered....

But remember, this is NOT Prod, and cars can not be micromanaged to run against each other at Mid Ohio.....;)

(On edit, IT is a huge category with a lot of spec lines (cars), and mistakes have been made over the years 9since what, '84?)...currently there is a rather large proposal submitted to the boards to fix many of those, but as now of course, they still stand. If the proposal is implemented, it is possible that there could be cars that slipped through and still need attention. In that case, of course, it will receive prompt attention.)

[Knestis]

Thanks for checking in here, CJ. You kind of stepped into a LONG-running - like 5 year - conversation about weight adjustments for IT cars. It hasn't even been possible to consider changing IT weight specs until just recently, and then only after a LOT of hard work to change the process and cultures involved.

The "prod" referred to above is the Production category. It is an entirely different ball of wax - mostly disfunctional, in my opinion - wherein I can complain about not being competitive in my 1959 Puddlebee and, if I find a favorable ear, I can get different specs for next season. It's a freakin' mess and we are trying hard to avoid IT falling into that same system.

K

[JRDbuilt]

Kirk, that helps clear up some of the confusion i had regarding this matter myself with the protege. I guess if i do come across the right car ill be more than happy to be the geny (sp) pig for this car with weight because im looking at it for seat time and personal development. so racing to win is what ill be shooting for but winning a race might be another story.

Im not sure if this has anything to do with this topic but not being able to sleep last night lead me infront of a calculator and my notebook. and by most of my calculations and just general knowledge with most of the ITA cars and what kind of power they put down yeilds me with a power to weight ratio ( this is my formula and not someone elses ) around the mid 16._ _ . To be able to compete with the weight of the protege you would need roughly 175 hp in the motor to have that same power to weight ratio or you would need 148._ _ _ at the wheels which I do not see happening with making the motor 100% legal for IT. Because you are starting out with a 125hp stock that puts it around 107 stock hp using factory ratings. so going from 107 to 148 at the wheels is 41 wheel horsepower that is needed to be at the competitive weight ratio.

now this probably doesnt mean anything to anyone I just figured I would throw it out there.

hopefully everything will get straightened out.
-CJ

[lateapex911]

Actually it does make sense...

so, that said, write that letter of support of the proposal....if you know what I mean, wink, wink, ;)

[ddewhurst]

I have trouble with formula "9since". <_<

[Geo]

While Jeremy is a good source of info on a lot of rules and rulings that have already been made, he&#39;s probably not the best for asking about a change to the rules.

Why?

Because he has nearly zero part in it (other than perhaps advising in certain cases). Rules are decided by the CRB with help from the advisory committees and they must be approved by the BOD.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by JRDbuilt@Nov 21 2005, 07:55 PM
Kirk, that helps clear up some of the confusion i had regarding this matter myself with the protege. I guess if i do come across the right car ill be more than happy to be the geny (sp) pig for this car with weight because im looking at it for seat time and personal development. so racing to win is what ill be shooting for but winning a race might be another story.

Im not sure if this has anything to do with this topic but not being able to sleep last night lead me infront of a calculator and my notebook. and by most of my calculations and just general knowledge with most of the ITA cars and what kind of power they put down yeilds me with a power to weight ratio ( this is my formula and not someone elses ) around the mid 16._ _ . To be able to compete with the weight of the protege you would need roughly 175 hp in the motor to have that same power to weight ratio or you would need 148._ _ _ at the wheels which I do not see happening with making the motor 100% legal for IT. Because you are starting out with a 125hp stock that puts it around 107 stock hp using factory ratings. so going from 107 to 148 at the wheels is 41 wheel horsepower that is needed to be at the competitive weight ratio.

now this probably doesnt mean anything to anyone I just figured I would throw it out there.

hopefully everything will get straightened out.
-CJ

66240


You&#39;re in for a long one if you think you can make a change based on trying to even up the power/weight ratio. You can argue till you&#39;re blue in the face, no one makes x for your car, and it won&#39;t make a difference because you can always have one custom made for some money. 125hp + a 25% gain= 156hp sounds like you&#39;re perfectly classed to me.

James

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 21 2005, 04:11 PM

I&#39;ll say it again... Race Results are NOT a basis for making adjustments...



66134



Funny, sure seems like race results weighed in pretty well with the e36 changes. Results that seem to include one particular orange car that runs alot at Road Atlanta <_<

[dickita15]

Fred, I think you will find that the proposed changes are based more on the perfomence calculations than results. That said people use results to defend those calculations and may even use results on a partcular make to tigger a closer look at the numbers.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Nov 27 2005, 12:48 AM
Funny, sure seems like race results weighed in pretty well with the e36 changes. Results that seem to include one particular orange car that runs alot at Road Atlanta <_<

66721


Wow Fred, how many times do Darin, Andy, Jake, et. al have to come on here and say that the process numbers on the E36 make it light, at its current race weight, and that the race results simply support that? Not to mention that they&#39;ve gotten dyno numbers from E36 owners that also support the fact that they car is too light, based on the process. I&#39;m sorry, but exactly what part of that don&#39;t you get?

Also, you have to remember, that they (the ITAC) did not suggest the restrictor (nor did they think it was the right decision), but that it was selected and implemented by the CRB.

It never ceases to amaze me that some people will totally ignore the facts, just to perpetuate a conflict. :bash_1_:

[Knestis]

In Fred&#39;s defense, this is what can happen if the people applying the new system cite finishing positions or lap times as support for that system.

ITAC dudes - you give people a wedge to drive into your efforts if you get pulled into conversations like that.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 27 2005, 11:07 AM
In Fred&#39;s defense, this is what can happen if the people applying the new system cite finishing positions or lap times as support for that system.

ITAC dudes - you give people a wedge to drive into your efforts if you get pulled into conversations like that.

K

66742


I agree Krik, but the key word you used is SUPPORT. Dick and Bill have it nailed above. Very few people have the ability to put their own toys down and look at the entire playground.

I am just the kind of person who feels the need to post and defend because I hate silence...because sometimes it can be deafening.

AB

[charrbq]

Word to the wise. Never get any opinion or judgement that isn&#39;t spelled out exactly in the GCR or Fast Track without putting it in print. I&#39;ve had to use an opinion from the National Office to save my buttocks more than once. I had it in print that the appropriate person gave me his judgement on the matter.

[Knestis]

That is VERY interesting because it ain&#39;t s&#39;posed to work that way.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 28 2005, 07:20 PM
That is VERY interesting because it ain&#39;t s&#39;posed to work that way.

K

66882

Probably wasn&#39;t used AS the ruling but used as a factor in MAKING a ruling.

[charrbq]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 29 2005, 01:49 AM
Probably wasn&#39;t used AS the ruling but used as a factor in MAKING a ruling.

66887

At that moment in time...same difference. Rule was later clarified in Fast Track, and my problem was verified as legal. No, it&#39;s not suppose to happen that way, but I&#39;ve learned that tech inspectors and stewards don&#39;t always have the same opinion about the same thing from race to race. Having an over ruling (clarifying) opinion in hand is better than a phone call to national on Monday.

[lateapex911]

There are a ton of rules in that thick book. I can see many instances where a steward might read the rule, and think..."Hmmmmmmm"...then get the supporting evidence and say, "Ahhh...I see now".

Supporting evidence shines a a different light on things.

On the other hand, the steward could read the rule and say "Ah ha.", then see the supporting evidence and say, "BS...but nice try". ;)

YMMV...

[Fastfred92]

Wow Bill, ease up... I don’t have a dog in this (e36) fight but I have seen the rules process evolution with respect to the Bimmers and THEY WERE weighted with race results. Andy Darin et al have all but spelled out that the Bimmerworld guys, York and Chet&#39;s results played a part in the changes. I agree that the e36 might have been lite from day one but from my southeast division view the RX7 and Z car guys are right there. The ARRC is often pointed to as a bench mark for IT but that does not work b/c that is sunbelt / Chet’s home track, elsewhere Andy&#39;s guy Nick (RX7)wins about every race I have seen him in even with 325&#39;s... My real grip is that the system is broken and until the boards address the problems these little changes will not fix it. Cars should not be classed (initially) in a place where they stand no chance to be competitive ( development yada yada ), put them in a class where they will and adjust down from there (adjustment down is a lot easier than up ). I still think the 944 is a A car, the Protégé is a B car, the GSR should weigh 100 lbs less in S and the 325 should be 3000 without a plate in S. IMHO the RX7 guys drive ITS rules, the CRX guys drive A and the VDubers drive B. I do not advocate rewards weight but you must admit the SPEED WC guys get a nice level playing field; we could do that in IT with the right rules package and or classes..

[Geo]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Nov 30 2005, 09:47 AM
Wow Bill, ease up... I don’t have a dog in this (e36) fight but I have seen the rules process evolution with respect to the Bimmers and THEY WERE weighted with race results. Andy Darin et al have all but spelled out that the Bimmerworld guys, York and Chet&#39;s results played a part in the changes.

67045


Fred, what you will find is we have said that results support our evaluation of the E36 using the process we have put every car through. I personally am TOTALLY against adjustments based upon results and I think I can speak for the rest of the ITAC that we all agree on this matter.

What gets bassakwards is when we say the results support our view of the car, people think it&#39;s based upon results. Not so. If a car is too light and many well prepared examples exist, one would expect the results to support the evaluation, don&#39;t you think?

[Bill Miller]

Fred,

Yes, results played a part. They validated the model. And rewards weight works in WC because you have the same group of guys racing each other. I could see this working in Club Racing in say, the MARRS or SARRC series. J. Fangio and his Puddlebee Special get 50# when they run in their race series. But they get to pull that out when they run a race outside their series. NOTE: I don&#39;t support the idea of rewards weight in Club Racing, but do see a case where it MIGHT be able to be implemented.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Nov 30 2005, 04:47 PM
... but I have seen the rules process evolution with respect to the Bimmers and THEY WERE weighted with race results. Andy Darin et al have all but spelled out that the Bimmerworld guys, York and Chet&#39;s results played a part in the changes.

67045



NO, they were NOT... If we had NEVER SEEN an E36 on the racetrack... If the car were being classified for the VERY FIRST TIME today... it&#39;s weight would be set at around 3150lbs...

If you&#39;d like evidence that this is STRICTLY based on the classification process, then look at the E46 classification... It makes LESS stock HP but is classified at 3000lbs... NO RACE RESULTS REQUIRED... THAT is simply what the numbers say it should weigh...

The only mention of race results by Andy, George, or myself, were in light of providing some level of actual evidence to validate what we already suggest is the case...

We are in the "business" of classifying cars... not trying to equate drivers, checkbooks, etc... so, as far as I&#39;m concerned, race results don&#39;t mean that much in the overall scheme...

But, this is NOT a new revelation... it&#39;s what I&#39;ve been saying all along, so I don&#39;t know why someone would make the statement you&#39;ve made above... It&#39;s simply not the case...

[Fastfred92]

Guys, don’t take this personally! I am just venting as a long time club racer who has always wondered how in the hell some things get classified as they do… If there is a formula then share it !!!! I remember years ago reading that the Porsche 914/6 was turned down for ITS because of the famous” too much potential”, this is a car that stock weighs 2200 lbs and has 120 hp / 133 tq stock and a torsion bar front suspension (18.3 lbs / hp ) and we just moved a VW GTI 16v 2.0 from ITS to A with a 18.2 lbs /hp. The e36 318 in ITA has to weigh like 2750 but stock it has 142 hp and weighs 2860 (20.1 ) and you tell me the e36 in ITS should be 3150 when stock it has 189 hp at 3086 ( 16.3 ) and the e46 listed at 3000 and stock is 170hp at 3150 lbs or 18.5 slightly more lbs per hp stock than the 16v GTI ??????? And the 944 ??? It fits nicely with the Integra and 240sx’s of the ITA but it has some mysterious “too much potential” syndrome ?? Don’t flame on me just tell us ( the club racing community ) what formula is used to classify cars, this does not need to be a black art or hidden science, it just needs to be uniform and public. My .02 for the day as I am heading to the PRI show so you won’t be annoyed by me for a few days!

[Banzai240]

Fred,

You are quoting a lot of cars that the ITAC doesn&#39;t feel are classified correctly either... We&#39;ve gone over this many times here... We are working on getting this fixed...

It&#39;s going to be up to the CRB to decide whether or not they wish to "reveal" any classification process... What we are using is in their hands in a VERY formal format... It&#39;s up to them from there...

Personally, I would have NO problem backwards engineering based on recent changes to figure it out... but then, I&#39;m privey to it, so maybe my view on that is skewed...

As for the 914... I&#39;ve never seen this request, and I&#39;m pretty sure it would be classified today if it were brought across our desks... It sounds like a good ITA or maybe light ITS car to me... Depends on what the "potential" is...

The bottom line is this... RELAX for a month or so and let&#39;s see if our plan gets accepted and put into action... I think you&#39;ll see that many... MANY... if not MOST, of these issues have been addressed...

I&#39;m sure we&#39;ll find out we&#39;ve missed a car here or there, but we have done our best to really address ALL of IT... just has to get accepted and put into print...

RELAX! AND... enjoy the PRI show!!

[Gary L]

Darin,

Can you tell us what is proposed, if anything, to allow for antique (SAE gross) horsepower ratings vs newer (SAE net) numbers? And if this is part of the process, at what year model is the line in the sand?

Thanks!

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Gary L@Nov 30 2005, 07:57 PM
Darin,

Can you tell us what is proposed, if anything, to allow for antique (SAE gross) horsepower ratings vs newer (SAE net) numbers? And if this is part of the process, at what year model is the line in the sand?

Thanks!

67072


Gary, that is something that is folded into the discussion when cars of that vintage come up.

As far as I can recall, the majority of specs changed in the &#39;73 range, but those were weird times...emission controls were doing strange things to engines, and the ratings were fudged from the factories in some cases.

As such, each car that comes up from that vintage gets a discussion with those factors in mind. The key, of course, is to understand what the car can do in race prep. Whenever possible, that information is used.