ITAC News.

[JeffYoung]

Awesome!

Any new IT blood???


on the topic of age:

I was at the SEDIV Double Drivers School at Roebling Road this past weekend. there were at least 10 guys under 30 in the school, and another 10 or so under 35. yes, there was a fair amount of grey hair in the room, but I was really happy to see so many younger people in the class. The weekend didn't end well for everyone (and ended very badly for a few in particular), but hopefully we'll retain most or all of those new drivers who did make it through.

[jhooten]

OK, If any of you are going to the convention find me and let's have a sit down so you educate me.

[CRallo]

I was wondering the same thing... seems this has been an issue before. I'm pretty sure that's a different old Volvo. 142 vs 240? or something like that...


We are talking about the same model Volvo that runs up here in the north east?? The very competitive north east? Where the Volves win frequently?? Am I missing something??

[lateapex911]

I was wondering the same thing... seems this has been an issue before. I'm pretty sure that's a different old Volvo. 142 vs 240? or something like that...

Nope, you've got the right model.
Nat's white one is probably what you're thinking about. Also, Paul Curren (Eric Currens father) runs one as well.
If you talk to Nat (I have, numerous times), he'll tell you he's constantly working on the car, tweak this and that. I hope he checks in here, but, I'd characterize his position as 'close, but there's more".

And, in reference to the above mentioned Eric Curren hot laps comment, the story is that we were at a test day up at lime Rock, and Eric happened to be there to help his Dad. For one session in the afternoon, Dad put Eric in the car for a few laps. Eyebrows jumped when the stopwatches were checked. Lap record stuff. Of course, it wasn't a race, it was only testing, and skeptics will suggest it was a stunt and the car was under weight or whatever. Nonetheless, it was done in front of an assembled mob of 3 people.
(For those who might not know, Eriic is an accomplished Pro driver with lots of sportscar wins and laps lead under his belt)

[Andy Bettencourt]

. Also, Tom Curren (Eric Currens father) runs one as well.

Paul Curren

[lateapex911]

Paul Curren
Duh...where'd I get Tom? Fixed.

[Chip42]

How many went for the "I got it!" attempted oversteer save coming onto the straight, and did the stick-and-poke into the wall driver's right...?

K

only one, and it was a light pancake, he continued on with his weekend after an OPM look over, maybe an alignment etc...
the big ugly was the sunday "race" where a very fast miata with a very young driver went WAY off driver's left in T1 and seemingly found a tire wall or tree to hit every panel on the car. He walked away but the car is not well.


Awesome!

Any new IT blood???

Morgan Mehler broke, but was there with an ITB VW A1 Wabbit GTI, Nick Ulbrik in his MR2, Robin Langlotz had a young family friend in his ITA integra, and there might have been an IT miata there, but I didn't notice any in the ITA/S group. there were a bunch of young spec miata drivers there. Corey had his STL Civic, and I think there were some Formula car youngsters as well.

Less young guys new to IT as well. Jay griffin's old "voodoo" ITB CRX was there with its new owner "Ace", also there was a very undeveloped ITA/B Del sol (long story), the owner (Sean) needs some helping guidance and the car needs substantial love but he did well regardless and is a super nice guy. Well known orlando tire shop owner "Carlito" had a new ITA civic Si. he rolled in 2, but continued on to the end of the weekend anyhow.

there were at least 4 trailers from Orlando in the paddock: Langlotz, Kings, Crucial, and TrackSpeed. we're proud of that.

FWIW my ITB MR2 had it's SCCA debut after 2 yeas of me taking time off to become a dad, and ran like a top. I guess I count as young in the SCCA...

[JeffYoung]

What was the overall turnout? Did we get up over 100 entries?

And yes, you are a young'un by SCCA standards....

[JLawton]

Nope, you've got the right model.
Nat's white one is probably what you're thinking about. Also, Paul Curren (Eric Currens father) runs one as well.
If you talk to Nat (I have, numerous times), he'll tell you he's constantly working on the car, tweak this and that. I hope he checks in here, but, I'd characterize his position as 'close, but there's more".

And, in reference to the above mentioned Eric Curren hot laps comment, the story is that we were at a test day up at lime Rock, and Eric happened to be there to help his Dad. For one session in the afternoon, Dad put Eric in the car for a few laps. Eyebrows jumped when the stopwatches were checked. Lap record stuff. Of course, it wasn't a race, it was only testing, and skeptics will suggest it was a stunt and the car was under weight or whatever. Nonetheless, it was done in front of an assembled mob of 3 people.
(For those who might not know, Eriic is an accomplished Pro driver with lots of sportscar wins and laps lead under his belt)

I was there to witness Eric's feat and know Paul very well. No stunt. I want to say he started running under the track record within 3-4 laps of hopping in the car. That's why he gets paid to race while us shmucks sit on the internet complaining about how slow our cars are. That wasn't a shot at anyone. Just a general comment.


But Paul and Nat's Volvos are some of the fastest ITB cars in the country. Top builds, top prep with great drivers.

Back when I ran at the back to middle of the pack I used to complain all the time that my car was not competitive, the other guys cheat, they have more money, blah, blah, blah. I was then lucky enough to spend a lot of time at the track with the fastest guys/cars in the country. it was eye opening........... No stone goes unturned. Hours prepping, hours on set-up, hours and hours and hours on driver developement.................... Anyone out there that thinks they are driving their car to it's maximum potential needs to "get real". There are better drivers out there that will hop into your car and demolish your times.............. Recognizing that fact will be the biggest factor in making any driver faster.

6 years ago I was lucky enough to buy inarguably a 10/10ths ITA car. It was supposed to be one of the fastest in the country. I got in it expecting to win my first race out and every time after that........ HA!! I was dreaming. I then spent the next 6 years developing me as a driver AND spending 6 years developing a 10/10ths car!!! We changed shocks, we changed sprints, alignment, sway bars. You name it, we fiddled with it. I found the harder I worked, the luckier I got..................


Hmmmmmmm. Sorry about the rant.............. I'm done now.......... :)



.

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7f9TnfLEu3ijpDvqtnIj7tJdizEGxI F9wgsll1ayahJ9AFe7TVJ4j8RhV

I think these are really cool ITB cars. Top 3 IMHO.

[JeffYoung]

All troof.


I was there to witness Eric's feat and know Paul very well. No stunt. I want to say he started running under the track record within 3-4 laps of hopping in the car. That's why he gets paid to race while us shmucks sit on the internet complaining about how slow our cars are. That wasn't a shot at anyone. Just a general comment.


But Paul and Nat's Volvos are some of the fastest ITB cars in the country. Top builds, top prep with great drivers.

Back when I ran at the back to middle of the pack I used to complain all the time that my car was not competitive, the other guys cheat, they have more money, blah, blah, blah. I was then lucky enough to spend a lot of time at the track with the fastest guys/cars in the country. it was eye opening........... No stone goes unturned. Hours prepping, hours on set-up, hours and hours and hours on driver developement.................... Anyone out there that thinks they are driving their car to it's maximum potential needs to "get real". There are better drivers out there that will hop into your car and demolish your times.............. Recognizing that fact will be the biggest factor in making any driver faster.

6 years ago I was lucky enough to buy inarguably a 10/10ths ITA car. It was supposed to be one of the fastest in the country. I got in it expecting to win my first race out and every time after that........ HA!! I was dreaming. I then spent the next 6 years developing me as a driver AND spending 6 years developing a 10/10ths car!!! We changed shocks, we changed sprints, alignment, sway bars. You name it, we fiddled with it. I found the harder I worked, the luckier I got..................


Hmmmmmmm. Sorry about the rant.............. I'm done now.......... :)



.

[Flyinglizard]

If you want a cheaper class, require DOT 200 tires. On stock or 7 in. wide wheels. The run what ya brung, can work well with a proper rule set.
The ITJ class has a beginning. If the rules require stock brakes and DOT 200 tires, the cars can run very well together. The small cars turn better, the big cars go better.
Relaxing the cage rules to allow any tabs inside the cabin is a good idea, along with stock car style cage kits.( most are ERW but well bent) Well over the requirements for SCCA.
The cage tabs and tubes are safety only ,on the low grip tires.

If you want more racers, run more 6hr night enduros. Night races draw very well and 6 hrs promotes 3 drivers.
Have the race group done all in one day. 30 min practice /qualify, 6 hr race. Go home. Reduce the down time, reduce the overnight stays, etc.

The SCCA sprint races are about 500$ per hr, require all weekend to do the 2 hrs on track, and some expensive peripherals to support the package.

Maybe SCCA could Issue Novice permits to drivers with 3 or more, Lemons or Chump races.
Reduce the hassle, reduce the cost per hr. Increase the tracktime per weekend/per $.
MM

[ShelbyRacer]

Rules creep strikes again, eh? :( I was referring to REAL SS. :D

Keep IT where it is!!!!!! I just want one little change............... just kidding!!!!



Actually Bill, it's not the packages that were the issue. It's the fact that the factory teams (or those with insane funding) could afford to:

Take 500 connecting rods and find the four lightest and best matched
(Ditto for almost any part- especially those that move!)
Bodies in white
Bodies in white with, um, factory reinforcement
New tires every session
Unlimited ability to program the stock ECU

There ain't nuthin "showroom" about a Showroom Stock car. They were BIG money back in the day. Ask the guy who *still* can't race with SCCA because he has an outstanding fine of $10,000 (yes, that's right- TEN THOUSAND) from the heyday of Showroom Stock racing.

Matt Rowe and I had to opportunity to spend significant time with some of the old SSA Shelby Charger racers and preparers. They probably spent more time and money on one engine than most of us (though certainly not ALL of us) spend on a whole car...

[JoshS]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7f9TnfLEu3ijpDvqtnIj7tJdizEGxI F9wgsll1ayahJ9AFe7TVJ4j8RhV

I think these are really cool ITB cars. Top 3 IMHO.

That looks way lower than 5" at the rockers?

[Andy Bettencourt]

That looks way lower than 5" at the rockers?

That is under compression on the outside of T6 at NHMS while accelerating uphill.

[RacerBill]

Actually Bill, it's not the packages that were the issue. It's the fact that the factory teams (or those with insane funding) could afford to:

Take 500 connecting rods and find the four lightest and best matched
(Ditto for almost any part- especially those that move!)
Bodies in white
Bodies in white with, um, factory reinforcement
New tires every session
Unlimited ability to program the stock ECU

There ain't nuthin "showroom" about a Showroom Stock car. They were BIG money back in the day. Ask the guy who *still* can't race with SCCA because he has an outstanding fine of $10,000 (yes, that's right- TEN THOUSAND) from the heyday of Showroom Stock racing.

Matt Rowe and I had to opportunity to spend significant time with some of the old SSA Shelby Charger racers and preparers. They probably spent more time and money on one engine than most of us (though certainly not ALL of us) spend on a whole car...

:) Like was said somewhere, sometime - there ain't no limit on what someone will spend to be at the pointy end of the field. :)

[lateapex911]

I was there to witness Eric's feat and know Paul very well. No stunt. I want to say he started running under the track record within 3-4 laps of hopping in the car. That's why he gets paid to race while us shmucks sit on the internet complaining about how slow our cars are. That wasn't a shot at anyone. Just a general comment.


But Paul and Nat's Volvos are some of the fastest ITB cars in the country. Top builds, top prep with great drivers.


.

yea, that's why I have a hard time accepting the cries I've heard from the MARRS Volvo guys in particular. I've been to Summit with a pretty fair ITB driver in Dave Gran. Our first weekend there we both set lap records. His got broken shortly thereafter by a tenth....and I've watched Dave struggle with Nat locally. As in: "lose to Nat". And Daves run at the very pointy end of the ARRC races too, less developed than he is now.
I've looked at Nats car pretty closely, it's certainly not flashy, but it's well prepped. And I HIGHLY doubt it's anything but legal. He might push the grey, but all of us do (or should).

So, I have to think, if Nat were to go to Summit, how would he do, once he learned the track and got his car set up for the track?
I'm pretty sure he'd run very well. Certainly well enough that I couldn't see warranting an investigation into the "Volvos need help" line of thinking.

yes, (Kirk!) I know this is the danger of inference logic, but, it's what I've got! I'll be happy to listen to other inferences of logic that attempt to disprove mine. ;)

[lateapex911]

Take 500 connecting rods and find the four lightest and best matched
(Ditto for almost any part- especially those that move!)
Bodies in white
Bodies in white with, um, factory reinforcement
New tires every session
Unlimited ability to program the stock ECU



Don't forget flowing dozens and dozens of cyl heads to find the best flowing one, same with anything air passes through. And the damper packages that somehow made up for the soft springs...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Isn't the point to look at the Volvo's on paper, set the weight an go? Are we saying the weight is solid per process? On-track observations from one area is bad.

Fact is they were set using 'common' numbers that were later found out to be flawed (illegal). If they are fixed, it's moot.

[StephenB]

I know Nat, Paul, and Eric and I think they all do great in those volvos. I know they both are running motec and spend a ton of time building good engines. However when talking to Nat he talks alot about balance. Some weekends he gets it right and flies, and other weekends he tries something and ends up top 3. Placing your balast in different locations (within the rules), changing your seating position, or even moving things like your fuel cell (up to 24 inches side to side!) make a big difference if your running multiple tracks

Stephen

(I know we have done things like this, not confirmed if Nat and Paul are)

[Flyinglizard]

I built 2 Volvos for customers. The "Blueprint cam" specked well over the just taken out,perfect original cam . The lift was close, the duration was very much improved.(visable )
The stock valve springs would coil bind and require replacing every third session. The "replacement" springs would last 6 races or more. Why is that?
We ran the stock, good fresh engine, in one car for a base line @ Watkins Glen. 2:38 @ about 50# over weight. The new cam, springs, brought this to 2:32, or there abouts. That works out to near 12 hp. I estimated the front BHP cars were @ about 145 real HP.
11.5/1 compression. Turning 7300 RPM?? The same BHP cars went about 2:26-2:27. Well driven no doubt. Phil..
MY VWs went 2:28.. (With open diffs, take another 1.5 off for locked)
The 142 handles really well and are by far the best stopping car in the class.
Does it belong in ITC? No.
Do the cams need looked @? Yes, but who has any real specs.?
IMHO, MM

[JeffYoung]

Oh good gracious. Here we go again on the Volvos....

No offense Lizard, appreciate the information. But sorting out these cars, the power they make and the legality of the various examples we see has been a big problem for the ITAC. BIG.

[TStiles]

This discussion makes me very thankful that I chose the miata

[JeffYoung]

I'll tell you what. I bet 80% of our time on the ITAC the last 2-3 years has been spent on ITB in general, and on a few cars (including the Volvo, the Audi, and the MR2) in it specifically.

And no, that is not because the power to weight ratio in ITB is "off."

[CRallo]

Lions and tigers and bears...

[pfcs]

Naaaah-all Volvo drivers are to be presumed cheaters and bottom feeding vermin incapable of any of the kind of integrity, skill, or the intelligence that a real winner requires. They are constitutionally incapable of ever doing the right thing and are never to be believed.

(ps: only the 71 142E <70/71 1800E also>had the great cam with 5deg addtl duration on both lobes. It may have had .010"? more lift as well. Of course the used cam was perfect-they never had a wear problem! I degreed the best original cam I found @ever 5deg and archived the info as well as in graphing it. I did this with BHP cam and aftermarket D (I think that was it-been 20yrs) or whatever was the B20E cam. All that went to Brumstead and co when everything was sold to people in Ithica. Point is, they were VERY close to one another as in legal.
I've run BHP springs, IPD B20 stock, and factory B20 springs. None were near coil bound when installed ht was legal and all needed regular replacement depending on how much you stretched the shift point. And I would be amazed to the improvement at WGI that you experienced)

PPS: I really doubt that any mentioned /volvo drivers are cheaters. Also, except for a notable overperformer @WGI, I can't think of any notable Volvo guys that are more than gray.

[callard]

Smokey Yunick grey?:D

[lateapex911]

Naaaah-all Volvo drivers are to be presumed cheaters and bottom feeding vermin incapable of any of the kind of integrity, skill, or the intelligence that a real winner requires. They are constitutionally incapable of ever doing the right thing and are never to be believed.

(ps: only the 71 142E <70/71 1800E also>had the great cam with 5deg addtl duration on both lobes. It may have had .010"? more lift as well. Of course the used cam was perfect-they never had a wear problem! I degreed the best original cam I found @ever 5deg and archived the info as well as in graphing it. I did this with BHP cam and aftermarket D (I think that was it-been 20yrs) or whatever was the B20E cam. All that went to Brumstead and co when everything was sold to people in Ithica. Point is, they were VERY close to one another as in legal.
I've run BHP springs, IPD B20 stock, and factory B20 springs. None were near coil bound when installed ht was legal and all needed regular replacement depending on how much you stretched the shift point. And I would be amazed to the improvement at WGI that you experienced)

PPS: I really doubt that any mentioned /volvo drivers are cheaters. Also, except for a notable overperformer @WGI, I can't think of any notable Volvo guys that are more than gray.

Phil, I think you are being sarcastic in your first line.
I don't think I've ever said or implied that.
I certainly have a lot of respect for the way the Volvo guys I know conduct themselves. To name names, thats Nat Wentworth and Paul Curren. I'm confident that IF there were items on tehir car that somebody would take issues with,those guys feel that they are parsing the rule correctly, and that tehy are legal. I am sure neither is doing anything they feel isn't legal.

But I read the stuff by Lizard, and I see numbers like 145, and I wonder if that is legal, then why aren't Volvos running away in ITB? I have seen sheets and know some real numbers on top three ARRC cars, and there isn't enough weight in the world that would keep a Volvo behind at the end of a straight with that kind of power. Stuffs just not adding up. That's ITA power.

[JS154]

** The people who stick with the game will tell you (I think) that they like rules continuity, deep competition, fair application of the regs, and hanging out with fun, like-minded people. These people define what should be the core membership, so listen to what they have to say and continue to give them what they like.

** History has demonstrated that at any given point in time, more than half of the club racers on the track are destined to leave after just a couple of seasons, regardless of what the club does. It's something of an over-generalization but they tent to NOT be like the core group above - they don't assimilate, they want to win (so often pick poorly subscribe classes), and their hobby ADD will have them looking at boats before their engine needs a rebuild. We can't retain this population so shouldn't try too hard, and above all we must not let them - and their particular "I think it should be like this" personal desires - drive the rules.

The above is, IMHO, right on.




** It's not a universal problem - some regions get it right - but any that is having trouble retaining drivers who do commit to doing a school had better look hard at the culture of their organization. One key person (e.g., registrar, tech inspector, steward, whoever) can be enough of an frustration to chase people away. I've met DOZENS over the years who honestly believe that their job is to screen the unworthy... These folks tend to be the "old guard," who don't understand that young people expect a customer-service orientation, a more egalitarian culture, and less officious assholenness. Every region that has these individuals knows who they are, and someone needs to get them straightened out.


K


I could not agree more with this. I have seen people and situations like this hurt participation in other clubs and sports as well.

Unfortunately, positions of authority tend to be attractive to people with big (and often fragile) egos and people with control issues. Racing certainly is expensive all-in considered, and those with the disposable income to participate tend to be more driven, more a-type personalities compared to those say for example the local bar softball or dart club.

Added in together and yeah, no matter how well-intentioned they may be, one person who is a real jerk or is just constantly abrasive and condescending, can really be a drag on participation on all levels - competitor, entrant, vounteer, management etc.

[JS154]

OK, If any of you are going to the convention find me and let's have a sit down so you educate me.

I will be at the convention and I would be happy to meet you. Being new to the SCCA I'm brain-deep in sponge-mode learning about the club and the classes and the people etc.

Eric Heinrich
GULF E30M3 Touring Car
STU#10

[JS154]

One of the things considered is tires per race. Realize that you normally buy tires at the first of the year (two sets for me) and run those tires all year. Subtract that from the race budget needed every race weekend. The normal costs for the race weekend are entry, gas (race car and tow vehicle), food, and lodging. Gas, of course, is dependent on how far you travel. Lots of people camp at the track so that cost can be saved. What ever works for you to mitigate costs. Chuck

Tires per race - there will always be someone who is buying fresh tires and shaving them down for each race. Stickers for qualifying of course!

[JS154]

Nope, you've got the right model.
Nat's white one is probably what you're thinking about. Also, Paul Curren (Eric Currens father) runs one as well.
If you talk to Nat (I have, numerous times), he'll tell you he's constantly working on the car, tweak this and that. I hope he checks in here, but, I'd characterize his position as 'close, but there's more".

And, in reference to the above mentioned Eric Curren hot laps comment, the story is that we were at a test day up at lime Rock, and Eric happened to be there to help his Dad. For one session in the afternoon, Dad put Eric in the car for a few laps. Eyebrows jumped when the stopwatches were checked. Lap record stuff. Of course, it wasn't a race, it was only testing, and skeptics will suggest it was a stunt and the car was under weight or whatever. Nonetheless, it was done in front of an assembled mob of 3 people.
(For those who might not know, Eriic is an accomplished Pro driver with lots of sportscar wins and laps lead under his belt)

He is also a past SCCA Jim Fitzgerald Rookie of the Year Award recipient.

[Mseiler]

OK, late to the discussion but, a few observations.

"The graying of SCCA is a problem" I heard this in 1987 when I went to my first SCCA meeting. I autocrossed a few times, got transfered in my job, then "merged" "downsized" and "outplaced" 3 times in 4 years. I got back into SCCA in '03 after doing a noon drive around Mid-Ohio(sitting under the Honda bridge after a clean run through the ESSES I looked at my wife and told her "we're going racing", thankfully she enthusiastically agreed) I had no idea how I was going to do this and it took until last Feb before I did the Double School at Roebling. The whole journey could fill a book but, the bottom line is everyone comes to the sport from a different direction so there is no one answer as to how to get people involved.

I learned something long ago from the best salesman I ever knew who told me, "I never sold anyone anything, I just make it easy to buy" If SCCA has a problem, this is it, we don't make it "easy to buy". To that end our region has begun putting out simple "guerilla marketing" pieces. A business card that asks, "Wanna Race" with a description on the back of Autocross, Time Trials/Hill Climbs and Road Racing. These are given to members to stick under the wipers of "hot" street cars they see or hand out to people they meet. We've also developed a 1-page, 2-sided Quick Start Guide for TT & Hill Climbing. It covers the MINIMUM prep needed to move up in the sport and cuts away all the GCR fog. We should put together a similar piece for Road Racing. All these direct the recipient to our website.

This is an expensive hobby no matter how you cut it. Let's be realistic, one fumble can turn your beloved racecar into a paperweight in seconds. Not everyone can afford that type of hobby or is willing to take that risk. As such you will never have the kind of customer pool from which to draw like golf or bird watching. My wife and I don't go on cruises or have a beach house or condo in the mountains, we race. As someone previously pointed out, the divorce rate for racers ain't low, thankfully we do this as a team. Now our son is co-driving with me and our grandson just got his race kart at the age of 8 and is autocrossing. Maybe you have a family member you can help get started as well.

The best thing we can do is get the word out about the sport. To that end, it would be nice if SCCA would make the main website easier to navigate to find your region (this business of several steps to look at chopped up state maps in crazy. How about a box on the main page where you enter your zip code(most folks have one) and up pops your region's website...sheesh, how hard is that?) AND do some advertising on SPEED and other race broadcasts to simply let people know HOW TO GET INVOLVED.

I don't claim that these are the answers but, I hope it may trigger thoughts from other upon which to build.

[stepping off soap box]:024:

[chuck baader]

JS154,,,actually I buy them for the ARRC and run them the next year and I do fairly well on them. You don't shave A6s:)Chuck

[JeffYoung]

Ok, very productive call last night. Lots of letters ploughed through and you will see a number of items in Fastrack this month I think.

A couple of big picture items were addressed. One, Chip and I spent some time sorting through the matter of the double wishbone adder in ITR. The issue was that while the Ops Manual stated that the DW adder applied to all classes (or more accurately was silent on any exclusions), it appeared that a lot of cars in ITR had not gotten it added. The thinking apparently was that double wishbones were the "norm" in ITR and thus the adder was not needed -- sound logic.

However, as Chip and I went through the ITCS it became apparent that a large chunk of the cars in ITR in fact had struts. So, the empirical basis for not using the DW adder in ITR did not seem to be correct.

I think (personal opinion) that the long term plan is to address this by a complete 'go through' of the cars in ITR to make sure the process was applied consistently. Two things on that: (a) it was NOT the fault of the prior ITAC as they were doing this at a time when the Process/Ops Manual was still in development and not entirely settled and (b) if anyone is to blame for the inconsistencies it is me since I was there when the Ops Manual was finalized.

The good news is most of the weights in ITR do not appear to be "off Process" by much so we do not anticipate any huge changes.

We made recommendations on the evap rule as well.

Again, the use of the Process has really made our job easier. I think we classed 5 cars last night all in the matter of 30 or so minutes because the Process (as it should) limits and directs our attention to a few factors in setting the weight rather than a free ranging discussion of (hypotheticall) how this car might do on track.

Kudos to Chip, Gary S., Gary L., Danny Doern, Lee and our CRB reps for a productive call.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ok, very productive call last night. Lots of letters ploughed through and you will see a number of items in Fastrack this month I think.

A couple of big picture items were addressed. One, Chip and I spent some time sorting through the matter of the double wishbone adder in ITR. The issue was that while the Ops Manual stated that the DW adder applied to all classes (or more accurately was silent on any exclusions), it appeared that a lot of cars in ITR had not gotten it added. The thinking apparently was that double wishbones were the "norm" in ITR and thus the adder was not needed -- sound logic.

However, as Chip and I went through the ITCS it became apparent that a large chunk of the cars in ITR in fact had struts. So, the empirical basis for not using the DW adder in ITR did not seem to be correct.

I think (personal opinion) that the long term plan is to address this by a complete 'go through' of the cars in ITR to make sure the process was applied consistently. Two things on that: (a) it was NOT the fault of the prior ITAC as they were doing this at a time when the Process/Ops Manual was still in development and not entirely settled and (b) if anyone is to blame for the inconsistencies it is me since I was there when the Ops Manual was finalized.

The good news is most of the weights in ITR do not appear to be "off Process" by much so we do not anticipate any huge changes.

We made recommendations on the evap rule as well.

Again, the use of the Process has really made our job easier. I think we classed 5 cars last night all in the matter of 30 or so minutes because the Process (as it should) limits and directs our attention to a few factors in setting the weight rather than a free ranging discussion of (hypotheticall) how this car might do on track.

Kudos to Chip, Gary S., Gary L., Danny Doern, Lee and our CRB reps for a productive call.

DW's weren't specifically called out in ITR back then, just the concept that the cars in ITR had 'advanced' suspension technolgy and were not different enough from each other to warrant an adder. See the FWD cars like the Contour and SHO getting strut 'deductions' as being 'not the norm'.

Please either eliminate the DW adder language in ITR or eliminate the -50 for struts in ITR. Better yet, please apply different language to a class of 'real' sports cars vs cars like in ITC.

[JoshS]

I think I can take the blame for the DW confusion. I knew, when I wrote the Ops Manual, that the only suspension-type adjustments that we were making in ITR were the live axle RWD deduct, and the front-strut FWD deduct. I think maybe I just didn't get it written down right and during the review process, I didn't notice (and I guess no one else did either!)

I think if you review the weights, you'll find that those two adjustments are the only two used.

[JeffYoung]

No worries. I didn't catch it either. But see below.


I think I can take the blame for the DW confusion. I knew, when I wrote the Ops Manual, that the only suspension-type adjustments that we were making in ITR were the live axle RWD deduct, and the front-strut FWD deduct. I think maybe I just didn't get it written down right and during the review process, I didn't notice (and I guess no one else did either!)

I think if you review the weights, you'll find that those two adjustments are the only two used.

From the work Chip and I did, it does look like the only way to explain some of the Honda/Acura weights is that a 50 lb adder in ITR was used for DW.

That caused us to think it through more and it does seem that the empirical basis for NOT having the adder in ITR is not correct. The predominant suspension in ITR is not DW. There are many cars in ITR with a strut based suspension (BMWs, Ponies, some of the Toyotas and Nissans, etc.) that are at a disadvantage to the DW cars.

So, the way the Ops Manual is written seems to work (whether intentional or not!):

1. DW cars in ITR get +50.
2. RWD cars with struts in the front are neutral.
3. FWD cars with struts in the front get -50.

That seems roughly "fair" to me and, I think, the rest of the committee.

[Andy Bettencourt]

From the work Chip and I did, it does look like the only way to explain some of the Honda/Acura weights is that a 50 lb adder in ITR was used for DW.



I would love to see your math please. Just from memory:

Type R: 195x1.20x11.25-100 for FWD. Spot on. Yes, -100 for FWD in ITR.
RSX: 200x1.25x11.25-100 FWD -50 strut. Spot on.
S2000: 240x1.15x11.25-100 for no torque. Spot on.
Gen 4 Prelude: 190x1.25x11.25-100 for FWD. Spot on.

I could go on.

Do all the ITR cars a favor and rewrite the ops manual. Do a deduction for struts if you really want to. Help keep the overall weight of the class down. I still submit, as I did then, that the 'strut' set-up in a Supra or 300ZX vs the DW's of a S2000 does not pose the same 'difference' as say a Miata and a Escort or Protege or Sentra.

The idea of an adder is to apply compensation for something significantly different. Those cars are advanced. And in class now with the Vette getting +50, there is a double whammy for it because, as proven above, FWD strut cars got a deduct.

In your above scenario, you treat struts differently for FWD and RWD? Why?

I love you guys but I fail to see why you would try and recreate the wheel by yourselves and get it wrong when Josh and I are a phone call away to help you understand the numbers/history.

[JeffYoung]

We aren't recreating the wheel. And we do consult with you guys on nearly all of these issues that come up.

What we are trying to do is rectify a LOT of inconsistencies that arose because of the timing on this. ITR came into being before the Process was firmed up. 100 lbs off in ITR for FWD? Not any more, we use a percentage deduct. So the weights appear off -- and may have led us to believe that a DW adder was used.

Be that as it may, the fundamental premise for not having a DW adder in ITR doesn't hold water. There are a LOT of strut cars in ITR and I do believe they are at a disadvantage to the DW cars. All strut cars retain the ability to correct a lot of geometry issues with the "struts are free" rule so I don't think there is as much difference between the strut suspensions in B and C and in R and S.

This ITAC believes that having the DW adder for R makes sense. This isn't some fundamental philosophical shift; it is a small adder that you disagree with. That's going to happen as we go forward, and it will happen to me when I leave the committee.

This, however, one the key reasons why we are trying to create a written record of classing decisions, and a written manual of IT philosophy and commitee operating procedures. No knock on you guys, you had a lot going on, but almost all of the issues can find their genesis in not having good records of why things were done back in the day (including the "day" that I was on the committee -- I'm as much at fault as anyone).

99% of what you guys came up with remains in place, solid and won't/can't be changed.

P.S. You might want to check the Supras and 300zxs. Don't think they are struts (in fact, I think the Supra is double wishbone front and rear).


I would love to see your math please. Just from memory:

Type R: 195x1.20x11.25-100 for FWD. Spot on. Yes, -100 for FWD in ITR.
RSX: 200x1.25x11.25-100 FWD -50 strut. Spot on.
S2000: 240x1.15x11.25-100 for no torque. Spot on.
Gen 4 Prelude: 190x1.25x11.25-100 for FWD. Spot on.

I could go on.

Do all the ITR cars a favor and rewrite the ops manual. Do a deduction for struts if you really want to. Help keep the overall weight of the class down. I still submit, as I did then, that the 'strut' set-up in a Supra or 300ZX vs the DW's of a S2000 does not pose the same 'difference' as say a Miata and a Escort or Protege or Sentra.

The idea of an adder is to apply compensation for something significantly different. Those cars are advanced. And in class now with the Vette getting +50, there is a double whammy for it because, as proven above, FWD strut cars got a deduct.

In your above scenario, you treat struts differently for FWD and RWD? Why?

I love you guys but I fail to see why you would try and recreate the wheel by yourselves and get it wrong when Josh and I are a phone call away to help you understand the numbers/history.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, Supra:

220x1.3x11.25 Spot on.

300ZX also spot on (before you 'corrected' it to 25%)

Where are the DW adders?

OK, like I said, if you want to differentiate DW's and struts, do it. But DON'T do in in an adder. Do it in a subtractor. Give strut cars (FWD or RWD - just like the DW adder is done in the other classes) a deduction. It functions the same way but helps the class on the whole because weights are REALLY high.

Yes, you use a % now. Much better IMHO...but again, a quick call when the numbers weren't making sense would have helped instead of incorrectly stating that a DW factor has been applied...it was never applied in ITR...and your subsiquent decision to keep the Vette with the +50 is flawed.

So please, either way you go (I say go with a deduction), please do it on the whole so that newer cars like the Vette aren't double handicapped until you bring everything in line with the Ops manual.

Edit: Porsche 944/968. Widely considered one of the best handling cars ever. Front struts.

[JeffYoung]

That's the point -- the Supra and the 300z have DW but didn't get the adder.

It "appears" the Hondas/Acuras did but it's just hard to tell right now.

We see three rough types of cars in ITR:

DW front -- +50
Front strut, RWD -- neutral
Front strut, FWD -- -50

I'm not sure why that isn't, again roughly, fair, other than we can dicker about the validity of the adder and the size of it (which is why I was opposed to almost all of these things).


OK, Supra:

220x1.3x11.25 Spot on.

300ZX also spot on (before you 'corrected' it to 25%)

Where are the DW adders?

OK, like I said, if you want to differentiate DW's and struts, do it. But DON'T do in in an adder. Do it in a subtractor. Give strut cars (FWD or RWD - just like the DW adder is done in the other classes) a deduction. It functions the same way but helps the class on the whole because weights are REALLY high.

Yes, you use a % now. Much better IMHO...but again, a quick call when the numbers weren't making sense would have helped instead of incorrectly stating that a DW factor has been applied...it was never applied in ITR.

So please, either way you go (I say go with a deduction), please do it on the whole so that newer cars like the Vette aren't double handicapped until you bring everything in line with the Ops manual.

[Knestis]

I'm pretty sure that all of the cars that were put into ITR were included in the xls spreadsheet that I handed over on my way out, that lists every factor that went into the weight recommended to the CRB.

If you're looking for "what was done," it should be there. If you're looking to "do it over," that's a different question.

It might be useful to check if there are any differences between the recommended weight and the weight approved by the CRB, too. I don't *think* there are any like that among the R cars but it's always a potential point of variation.

K

[JeffYoung]

We are looking for "what was done." If the DW adder was never applied in ITR, and we could explain the weights of the Hondas/Acuras, then it's a harder call.

But we still get snagged on the issue of the empirical basis for it not being applied to ITR just doesn't seem correct.

I believe Chip was working off your spreadsheet, but again, pretty sure that was before the percentage deduct and I also think some of the power percentages were adjusted from what is on it. Mitsu/Dodge V6 gets 35% for some reason....


I'm pretty sure that all of the cars that were put into ITR were included in the xls spreadsheet that I handed over on my way out, that lists every factor that went into the weight recommended to the CRB.

If you're looking for "what was done," it should be there. If you're looking to "do it over," that's a different question.

It might be useful to check if there are any differences between the recommended weight and the weight approved by the CRB, too. I don't *think* there are any like that among the R cars but it's always a potential point of variation.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

As I try and figure out what 'type' of front suspension was on the Z32 300ZX's, it hits home again why the DW adder was left off and a subtractor was put in:

The 300ZX appears to NOT be a DW design, but a complex multi-link. It's not a strut and it's not a true DW either. Hence the concept of 'advanced' cars as the target, others getting help.

The Supra does indeed have DW's.

[JeffYoung]

Front and rear on the Supra as a matter of fact. It's a Supramiata!

Having looked at a 300zx suspension up close -- including illegal ratcheting upper control arms -- how is that not DW? Just asking, trying to understand.


As I try and figure out what 'type' of front suspension was on the Z32 300ZX's, it hits home again why the DW adder was left off and a subtractor was put in:

The 300ZX appears to NOT be a DW design, but a complex multi-link. It's not a strut and it's not a true DW either. Hence the concept of 'advanced' cars as the target, others getting help.

The Supra does indeed have DW's.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mitsu/Dodge V6 gets 35% for some reason....

I can't make that one work but its more like 30% (like all the big 6's got).

222x1.3x11.25 - 100 -50 = 3095 (listed at 3120)

35% would have been 3220lbs with the -150 for FWD and struts.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So now that we know the history...the question is what SHOULD be done.

I submit that either the Vette gets classed without a DW adder so it is on par with the rest of the class...

AND

Class all DW cars at +50 in ITR, remove -50 strut deduction - and do it all together

OR

Use DW's as the 'zero' bogey and give struts the -50 to keep ITR weight in check.

But as an aside, it's not fair to handicap the Vette by whacking it on both sides.

[JeffYoung]

I can tell what was done, and what I *think* will be done going forward.

- we agreed on the rough outline I presented above.

DW - +50 in ITR
Struts/RWD - neutral
Struts/FWD - -50

Vette got the +50 for DW.

- we realize that there are inconsistencies in the ITR weights and are starting a "relook" to make sure everything was classed consistently.

- the reality is that this will take some time and cars in ITR that get a DW adder might be at a slight disadvantage (50 lbs) until this is corrected.



So now that we know the history...the question is what SHOULD be done.

I submit that either the Vette gets classed without a DW adder so it is on par with the rest of the class...

AND

Class all DW cars at +50 in ITR, remove -50 strut deduction - and do it all together

OR

Use DW's as the 'zero' bogey and give struts the -50 to keep ITR weight in check.

But as an aside, it's not fair to handicap the Vette by whacking it on both sides.

[JoshS]

The Stealth/3000GT wasn't 35%, it is missing the FWD/strut deduct. It's all in my spreadsheet with notes, I think that's what is bundled into Kirk's. Should have asked if you don't have it. I shared that issue and many others from that spreadsheet with the ITAC many times.

[JeffYoung]

The spreadsheet is helpful (we have it) but the real issue is that we did ITR peicemeal as the Process developed. We need to do it all again consistently:

1. FWD percentage deduct.
2. DW adder.
3. 25% default rule (right now we have some cars at 35%, some at 30%, some at 25%, some at 15% and some at 10% and not a lot of data to back it up).

I know that last point will be the stickiest and no, we don't intend to make willy nilly changes (or many changes at all). And the good news is most cars are not far off process weight at all.

[Chip42]

the problem, however you slice it, is that the ops manual and the "old" ITR cars classing maths don't agree.

newer ITR cars have been processed using the ops manual, as we have all agreed to do. asking helps us ID why the ops manual math doesn't work, but I think the math should work, it's based on sound principles. I also think that we should rerun the class with the math we said we would use, because this class is growing and the unblance will get worse in not much time.

I'd say the same about ITS-C but they are much better established and some cars "work" without being "right" by process, and that is understood and we just have to recognize that these guys seem to be appropritately classed by whatever circumstance or happy accident and move on. anything not properly classed should be addressed via the ops manual.

I say keep the DW adder in R, but apply it to all "advanced" deisgns (be they FWD, RWD, or AWD) and document that decision as we document all of our decisions.

so you will have
RWD +50 "advanced suspension"
RWD "neutral" suspension
RWD -50 RWD live axle
FWD -6% +50 "Advanced suspension"
FWD -6% -50 Strut. I'm willing to update the ops manual to remove this adder if the rest of the ITAC agrees with me. the other adders make it irrelevant.

yes, you could do -50 for "neutral" and FWD strut suspensions but then you have a functionally different adder schema through the ITCS. I prefer this way, and as an aside it adds a touch of weight to the FWD guys who are having trouble getting down (I'm looking at you, celica).

sorry if this upsets any one in the membership and/or old guard. I think the long term effects will be positive and the short term will be minimal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So again....

Why is ITR different than any other class where the DW cars get a double whammy? The ops manual says +50 for DW. Has the ITAC decided to change the +50 to a net +100? If you implement a -50 for strut FWD then it's really a +100. On top of a huge deduction already for FWD?

Help me understand the logic of changing the current ops-manual methodology.

And again again, if you really think that a 100lb difference in needed in ITR alone (which I think is ridiculous) then do it as a 100lb advantage for the FWD strut cars.

And IMHO the 'right' thing would have been to class the Vette 'like' the other cars with a caveat that the entire class was getting looked at instead of giving it extra weight for who-knows-how-long until the CRB actually gets around to letting to do a total revamp. Kinda sucks.

[Andy Bettencourt]

the problem, however you slice it, is that the ops manual and the "old" ITR cars classing maths don't agree.

newer ITR cars have been processed using the ops manual, as we have all agreed to do. asking helps us ID why the ops manual math doesn't work, but I think the math should work, it's based on sound principles. I also think that we should rerun the class with the math we said we would use, because this class is growing and the unblance will get worse in not much time.

I'd say the same about ITS-C but they are much better established and some cars "work" without being "right" by process, and that is understood and we just have to recognize that these guys seem to be appropritately classed by whatever circumstance or happy accident and move on. anything not properly classed should be addressed via the ops manual.

I say keep the DW adder in R, but apply it to all "advanced" deisgns (be they FWD, RWD, or AWD) and document that decision as we document all of our decisions.

so you will have
RWD +50 "advanced suspension"
RWD "neutral" suspension
RWD -50 RWD live axle
FWD -6% +50 "Advanced suspension"
FWD -6% -50 Strut. I'm willing to update the ops manual to remove this adder if the rest of the ITAC agrees with me. the other adders make it irrelevant.

yes, you could do -50 for "neutral" and FWD strut suspensions but then you have a functionally different adder schema through the ITCS. I prefer this way, and as an aside it adds a touch of weight to the FWD guys who are having trouble getting down (I'm looking at you, celica).

sorry if this upsets any one in the membership and/or old guard. I think the long term effects will be positive and the short term will be minimal.

Thanks for the thoughts Chip. Questions:


asking helps us ID why the ops manual math doesn't work, but I think the math should work, it's based on sound principles.

Why doesn't it 'work' - because everything wasn't locked in at 25%? That's not how the process is supposed to work. Otherwise it's a formula.

What other cars besides the Vette have been processed in ITR with the 'new' Ops manual? Curious. Can't think of any.


the problem, however you slice it, is that the ops manual and the "old" ITR cars classing maths don't agree.I disagree wholeheartedly. The OPS manual shouldn't say 'use 25% in every case no matter what'. ITR had a shit-ton of thought put into it to really try and estimate potential on the front end because they were so different that cars that were getting classed just 3-5 years prior. Tremendous specific outputs and such. When the weights were done, a lot of it was done using internet research and COMMON SENSE. The S2000 for example. 15% gains predicted. 240hp out of a N/A 2.0L. You change that, the Type R etc, and you will murder them. Yes, process first, THEN you look to see if it makes sense. Drill that into our heads. If it doesn't pass the smell test, research is done. You guys know but it seems to be getting lost in the wash somewhere. Yes, the class is growing. Say that again. Agree or disagree with the %'s used during classification no problem, but the ITAC needs to define what is right, then codify it...not lock in on 'but this is what the manual says we have to do'. Change the manual if it's wrong (see Josh's posts).


RWD +50 "advanced suspension"
RWD "neutral" suspension
RWD -50 RWD live axle
FWD -6% +50 "Advanced suspension"
FWD -6% -50 Strut. I'm willing to update the ops manual to remove this adder if the rest of the ITAC agrees with me. the other adders make it irrelevant.I guess I don't see the reasoning to slice this up into a million pieces. PLEASE DON'T ADD WEIGHT...just subtract it. Cars over 3000lbs now are going to gain more.

Why not (if you really want to add stuff):

Base car has 'Advanced suspension' TBD by ITAC, must be defined (no matter FWD or RWD, no need to clarify)
-50 for solid axle
FWD -6%
FWD -6% - 50 for strut

Soup.

[JeffYoung]

One quick point on the 25%. No, we are not using it every case.

But we are requiring a higher standard than just a few calls or some guesswork to move off of that number.

The Z32 is a classic example of this (and it has now been processed using the Ops Manual procedure).

This car should have been a bread and butter car in the class but exactly one guy -- a dedicated Nissan guy -- has built one and all the Nissan oriented speedshops have stayed away from it. Why? Because it got tagged with a lot of weight based on a guess from an old dyno sheet.

The system can't work that way either.

The problem with why the numbers in the spreadsheet and the ITCS do not line up with what the Ops Manual says they should be relates primarily to (a) the percentage deduct for FWD; (b) the adjustment of other adders; (c) while you say a lot of thought went into the engine gain percentages, and I am sure they did, it certainly does look willy nilly and there is zero documentation to back it up (what research was done to tag the Mitsu/Dodge V6 with more than 25%??) and (d) just plain math errors.

ITR needs a clean up. Bad. The "offs" aren't huge but they are embarassing.

ON edit: That last statement is VERY dangerous. The manual should be set in stone. There are means for correcting erros within the existing procedures. But if the procedures can be changed willy nilly - that is EXACTLY what Kirk has warned about and he is right. The Process needs to stay consistent.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This car should have been a bread and butter car in the class but exactly one guy -- a dedicated Nissan guy -- has built one and all the Nissan oriented speedshops have stayed away from it. Why? Because it got tagged with a lot of weight based on a guess from an old dyno sheet.



Try not to re-write history. There is a TON of knowledge on that motor in the GT community. Stock sheets, bolt on sheets and full-prep sheets. Just like when we asked AS V8 builders for their input on the CamaroBirds when the CRB was freaked out, that was what was done there. The info was blended together. But whatever.


The problem with why the numbers in the spreadsheet and the ITCS do not line up with what the Ops Manual says they should be relates primarily to (a) the percentage deduct for FWD; (b) the adjustment of other adders; (c) while you say a lot of thought went into the engine gain percentages, and I am sure they did, it certainly does look willy nilly and there is zero documentation to back it up (what research was done to tag the Mitsu/Dodge V6 with more than 25%??) and (d) just plain math errors.

ITR needs a clean up. Bad. The "offs" aren't huge but they are embarrassing.

A clean up is always good but lets not tag 'embarrassing' to a dynamic older way of doing things. When some ITAC members left and came on, a great initiative was undertaken to document the process, as you know. This led to months of running through scenarios and writing things down. It was great.

And maybe the new way is to hold the 25% more to the fire and we will have to accept it. Bottom line, we did the same thing vs the regime that preceded us...and they didn't like it either. :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

ON edit: That last statement is VERY dangerous. The manual should be set in stone. There are means for correcting erros within the existing procedures. But if the procedures can be changed willy nilly - that is EXACTLY what Kirk has warned about and he is right. The Process needs to stay consistent.

PLEASE don't be the guy waving the 'because that's how it's always been done' flag. If the ITAC feels there needs to be a 100lb delta on DW's, then it's your job to make it happen. Of course not willy-nilly. But if you believe the process needs to evolve. Evolve it.

And IIRC, Kirk never said the Process needs to stay consistent, he said that the Process needs to be documented and followed in a consistent fashion to remain consistent. TOTALLY different. It's like ISO standards. You can have imperfect procedures that are very dynamic to continue your process improvement, but you just have to have each iteration written down and followed during it's 'life'.

[JeffYoung]

I'm not. But I'm the guy saying the Process ahs to stop evolving and settle -- for a good while. The constantly evolving process, while necessary, is also the genesis of a lot of the problems we have right now.

We have to let it settle. I feel a lot of frustration from drivers over the Process constantly "moving."



PLEASE don't be the guy waving the 'because that's how it's always been done' flag. If the ITAC feels there needs to be a 100lb delta on DW's, then it's your job to make it happen. Of course not willy-nilly. But if you believe the process needs to evolve. Evolve it.

[CRallo]

struts are struts, don't split hairs please.

[Chip42]

Thanks for the thoughts Chip. Questions:



Why doesn't it 'work' - because everything wasn't locked in at 25%? That's not how the process is supposed to work. Otherwise it's a formula.

What other cars besides the Vette have been processed in ITR with the 'new' Ops manual? Curious. Can't think of any.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The OPS manual shouldn't say 'use 25% in every case no matter what'. ITR had a shit-ton of thought put into it to really try and estimate potential on the front end because they were so different that cars that were getting classed just 3-5 years prior. Tremendous specific outputs and such. When the weights were done, a lot of it was done using internet research and COMMON SENSE. The S2000 for example. 15% gains predicted. 240hp out of a N/A 2.0L. You change that, the Type R etc, and you will murder them. Yes, process first, THEN you look to see if it makes sense. Drill that into our heads. If it doesn't pass the smell test, research is done. You guys know but it seems to be getting lost in the wash somewhere. Yes, the class is growing. Say that again. Agree or disagree with the %'s used during classification no problem, but the ITAC needs to define what is right, then codify it...not lock in on 'but this is what the manual says we have to do'. Change the manual if it's wrong (see Josh's posts).

I guess I don't see the reasoning to slice this up into a million pieces. PLEASE DON'T ADD WEIGHT...just subtract it. Cars over 3000lbs now are going to gain more.

Why not (if you really want to add stuff):

Base car has 'Advanced suspension' TBD by ITAC, must be defined (no matter FWD or RWD, no need to clarify)
-50 for solid axle
FWD -6%
FWD -6% - 50 for strut

Soup.

The math I ran mostly doesn't work because I ran a lot of FWD cars, and as using 6% per ops manual vs. 100lbs. The deduct for struts as the rule sits now only affets fwd cars and I agree that this is excessive, but I think it works better to add weight as fwd cars in particular are getting lighter than is achievable in many cases.

Tell ya what though, I'm a fair broker and my interest here is creating consitancy with the methods e use and all clasified cars. So if a deduct for struts seems more sensible and physically achievable, then I'm open to it over an adder. I like the consistency of the adder as it is what is used in other classes of IT. The only real difference in itr is the fwd strut deduct (see above on my thaughts there) and the stick axle deduct.

All other classes above ITC have 4 major weight options for a given engine:
Rwd dw +50
Rwd
Fwd dw -X% +50
Fwd -X%

So this isreally no different, and the 50 lbs vs itr power levels makes it actually less of a concern there than in the lower classes....

[Andy Bettencourt]

All other classes above ITC have 4 major weight options for a given engine:
Rwd dw +50
Rwd
Fwd dw -X% +50
Fwd -X%

So this isreally no different, and the 50 lbs vs itr power levels makes it actually less of a concern there than in the lower classes....

Right, but it's always a concern because it's not about HP, it's about needless weight that affects braking, ballast placement, etc. Please do the research on the lighter cars and err toward less weight if it makes sense for the category. It may not, but I am betting aside from 1 or 2 listings, it does.

So lets get proactive and get rid of that 'extra' 50lbs on the Vette and either take it down 50 temporarily until the Ops manual gets corrected OR the rest of the class is brought up 50. If that can't be done in 2-3 months, I would suggest the first solution. Fair is fair.

Did you find any other ITR cars that have been classed? Curious.

[seckerich]

I'm not. But I'm the guy saying the Process ahs to stop evolving and settle -- for a good while. The constantly evolving process, while necessary, is also the genesis of a lot of the problems we have right now.

We have to let it settle. I feel a lot of frustration from drivers over the Process constantly "moving."



Drivers are getting very tired of every new crew on the ITAC thinking they have a better way and need to keep screwing with classes. Fix the errors and stop. Add any more weight to ITR cars and you will see some builds stop--today. A duck shoot at a county fair has less moving targets.

[Andy Bettencourt]

[/B]



Drivers are getting very tired of every new crew on the ITAC thinking they have a better way and need to keep screwing with classes. Fix the errors and stop. Add any more weight to ITR cars and you will see some builds stop--today. A duck shoot at a county fair has less moving targets.

And I can buy this for sure. But what they have uncovered is that they blindly followed the Ops manual (which was in error) and mis-classed a car given how ITR was created and how the rest of the class is weighted. So they have 2 choices. 'Fix' the manual (add weight to everything in ITR with DW's) or correct the pending Vette listing -50.

Seems simple if the goal is for some short term stability.

[seckerich]

Give the Vette a mullet and 100 pounds and call it a day. :D

[Chip42]

New cars:
we recently classed the 1st gen Acura TSX. 2760 by process, and we are worried that this might be unachievably LIGHT. by "your" process it would have been 2785 by virtue of a 100# vs 6% FWD deduct, even with no +50lbs for suspension. so we are keeping some things lighter :rolleyes:

also clased the '84 'Vette, an older mustang ('86 GT IIRC), another comarobird. As the requests come in, more will be classed. I tend to believe that HEAVY and NOT ADVANCED suspension are the way of the newer additions because hp numbers have exploded and cars have gotten fat, but they have also been stamped out and spoprtiness is often not part of the equation. the DW adder should stay.

in fact, following the ops manual process perfectly, the hondas (including the S2000s)lose on average ~35#. the stealth/300GT loses 235#. Note that the ops manual also calls out weight adders for over/under displacment and tq. and we have NOT been follwoing the displacement math - it would raise the wait of the 'vette to 3165 if we did. again, I'm cool with dropping this from the ops manual with the FWD strut deduct if the rest of the committee is, but it's going to be hard to convince me to get rid of the DW adder.

[Andy Bettencourt]

New cars:
we recently classed the 1st gen Acura TSX. 2760 by process, and we are worried that this might be unachievably LIGHT. by "your" process it would have been 2785 by virtue of a 100# vs 6% FWD deduct, even with no +50lbs for suspension. so we are keeping some things lighter :rolleyes:

also clased the '84 'Vette, an older mustang ('86 GT IIRC), another comarobird. As the requests come in, more will be classed. I tend to believe that HEAVY and NOT ADVANCED suspension are the way of the newer additions because hp numbers have exploded and cars have gotten fat, but they have also been stamped out and spoprtiness is often not part of the equation. the DW adder should stay.

in fact, following the ops manual process perfectly, the hondas (including the S2000s)lose on average ~35#. the stealth/300GT loses 235#. Note that the ops manual also calls out weight adders for over/under displacment and tq. and we have NOT been follwoing the displacement math - it would raise the wait of the 'vette to 3165 if we did. again, I'm cool with dropping this from the ops manual with the FWD strut deduct if the rest of the committee is, but it's going to be hard to convince me to get rid of the DW adder.

Again, much appreciated on the specifics...but help me with the math.

How would the S2000 lose weight by ops manual?

And how would the Vette gain weight seeing as it already has 150lbs 'extra' for torque? Does the ops manual have a double whammy for displacement AND torque?

Again, a separation between struts and DW is needed IMHO. Just get rid of the double application of the adder. The Vette is taking it in the ass on that front.

And PLEASE lets stop with the 'your' process stuff. I know you meant the 'collective' your...but I was the author of the deduction by % change. You see it in your ops manual now because of that regimes work. And frankly, that was one of the 'changes' that was on the pile when the CRB lost it's mind about the process.

EDIT: Why would the TSX ever get consideration for +50 for suspension? I would hope it's a strut car or else it would have gotten the +50 just like the Vette. No?

[JeffYoung]

We did the torque adder with the Vette -- at least in the calculation I did. That car is by some 45 cubic inches the biggest motor in ITR and by far the highest stock torque.

Andy, the real error was a couple of steps back. It was in concluding that a DW "modifier" was appropriate in all cases other than ITR because ITR cars were primarily DW. They are not.

And I don't think we have any real basis to evaluate 'advanced" strut designs v. "non-advanced." We aren't eqiupped to evaluate suspension geometry (nor should we be doing that) and in any event, strut cars have some options to fix that with the way the rules are written (depending on design).

I know the easy way to you -- the guy building the Vette:) - is to just suspend the DW adder in ITR but to me it is not. We have a whole slew of cars that are screwed up in ITR right now and need to be fixed and to start doing cars the right way makes the most sense.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Give the Vette a mullet and 100 pounds and call it a day. :D

Got my Joe Dirt wig...and she gets 150lbs just for extra torque! :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

We did the torque adder with the Vette -- at least in the calculation I did. That car is by some 45 cubic inches the biggest motor in ITR and by far the highest stock torque.

No issues here. It was a piece of the pie when I was there and was fully expecting that adder. Thought I remembered +100 but it was 150.


Andy, the real error was a couple of steps back. It was in concluding that a DW "modifier" was appropriate in all cases other than ITR because ITR cars were primarily DW. They are not.

But the facts remain. No cars in ITR got adders for DW AND there is a deduction for strut/FWD. Revise the process how you want, but that is how the cars were classed.


And I don't think we have any real basis to evaluate 'advanced" strut designs v. "non-advanced." We aren't eqiupped to evaluate suspension geometry (nor should we be doing that) and in any event, strut cars have some options to fix that with the way the rules are written (depending on design).I would tend to agree but there are certainly many shades of grey when evaluating. Cripes, the 2nd gen RX-7, the 944, 968, etc...strut cars.


I know the easy way to you -- the guy building the Vette:) - is to just suspend the DW adder in ITR but to me it is not. We have a whole slew of cars that are screwed up in ITR right now and need to be fixed and to start doing cars the right way makes the most sense.The problem is that no cars in ITR have a DW adder. That HAS TO BE taken into account someplace. I don't really care is there is a DW adder (but I am on record as saying it's better for the class and the racers to have a strut deduction instead) but right now the Vette is the only car in ITR with that distinction.

In fairness to the people building them, take the 50lbs out for now, get your 'fixes' done in the OPS manual, then apply changes to the whole class. Don't saddle the Vette with an extra 50lbs because the committee didn't know it's history. I hope common sense will prevail in the short term on the Vette and you can clear up the ITR issues as fast as possible.

[callard]

Y'all keep talking about adders and subtracters for FWD and RWD based on what it does to handling. One area not addressed is RWD with engine in the rear - a real negative for handling. How about re-considering what should be done with the Porsche 911 models in IT-S and IT-R?
Is this the Rant guy -> :026:

[JeffYoung]

Quite honestly, do you think that 50 lbs will have any significant impact in performance?

The flip side of this is that I'm convinced after looking at dyno sheets and having experience with making large displacement motors with low stock hp "work" in IT that the Vette's 350 is going to see big gains. The intake is an issue but that is not where IT flow improvements are seen. You need to scavenge and you put a great header design on that car and you are going to move the torque peak up a lot if the cam has some overlap.

I suspect you guys know this which is why the car is being built, and that's fine. You are entitled to the benefit of your hard work, and taking a chance.

But I think it very likely the car will make way more than 25% (but voted for it anyway because we don't have any real data to the contrary) and think keeping the DW adder in place for now is no real injustice.

[Chip42]

Again, much appreciated on the specifics...but help me with the math.

How would the S2000 lose weight by ops manual?

the 2.0L is under the "normal" displacement, so would loose some there (100#). the other doesn't.


And how would the Vette gain weight seeing as it already has 150lbs 'extra' for torque? Does the ops manual have a double whammy for displacement AND torque?

my mistake it's a tq/disp adjustment. to my knowledge, never applied other than the 5.o,5.7L etc... cars getting +150#.


Again, a separation between struts and DW is needed IMHO. Just get rid of the double application of the adder. The Vette is taking it in the ass on that front.

disagree. the strut adder ONLY affects FWD cars. it's not a 100lbs split RWD strut to RWD DW, it's 50. it's 100# to the FWD guys, so I agree we should do away with it. I think following the standard +50 foe DW formula is easier, so vote that way.


And PLEASE lets stop with the 'your' process stuff. I know you meant the 'collective' your...but I was the author of the deduction by % change. You see it in your ops manual now because of that regimes work. And frankly, that was one of the 'changes' that was on the pile when the CRB lost it's mind about the process.
no offense intended, but it's an easy to follow conversational reference to the process for which you are arguing, and which determined the bulk of existing ITR classifications. and believe me, I've kept up on the history. THANK YOU (and kk and jg and js etc..) fo getting us here. please don't be upset when we try to use the tool you worked so hard to leave us with.

the membership has access to the ops manual, and I think it's fair that they should be able to monday morning quarterback our work or a theoretical classification and get the same results we do. that's really the crux of the situation.


EDIT: Why would the TSX ever get consideration for +50 for suspension? I would hope it's a strut car or else it would have gotten the +50 just like the Vette. No?
it is a DW car and it did get +50, like the vette, though AFTER a -6% that -6%+50# is still a 25 larger weight break than the "old process" (better?) would have given it (-100 for FWD only).

while we're on the subject, can anyone from the realignment era committee explain the 100# weight break to the S2000 as shown in the spreadsheet under the "other" column?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Quite honestly, do you think that 50 lbs will have any significant impact in performance?

TOTALLY not the point Jeff. Any extra weight is a pain and a detriment.


The flip side of this is that I'm convinced after looking at dyno sheets and having experience with making large displacement motors with low stock hp "work" in IT that the Vette's 350 is going to see big gains. The intake is an issue but that is not where IT flow improvements are seen. You need to scavenge and you put a great header design on that car and you are going to move the torque peak up a lot if the cam has some overlap.With all due respect, you need to do some more research on the intake and how crappy it is. Every engine has a bottleneck and if the intake is the weak area, there will be no huge gains to be had if you can't get enough air in to make a difference. Frankly, the routing sucks. Builds have been done on these for decades and all the hop-up stuff just isn't IT legal.


I suspect you guys know this which is why the car is being built, and that's fine. You are entitled to the benefit of your hard work, and taking a chance.

But I think it very likely the car will make way more than 25% (but voted for it anyway because we don't have any real data to the contrary) and think keeping the DW adder in place for now is no real injustice.We THINK it can make 25% (mostly because a nice B&B on these older motors really tightens things up), have great torque, plenty of tire, and handle well. Issues of concern are HP, brakes, and and transmission (hoping the +3 business doesn't hurt the car). There is no way to do what you did with the TR8 as it doesn't have individual injectors, just 2 small throttle bodies injecting fuel into that manifold. Much like the old-school cross-ram carburated units of yesteryear.

It IS an injustice Jeff, no matter how small you think it is. Apply the process evenly to all cars. Now you know how ITR was built, either continue along that path or put the Vette on a +50 hold and get the rest of the class in line. That ain't going to happen in the next 3-4 months so do the right thing for the member who is building the car and get it in line with the class. Right now there is a 250lb difference in a car with excessive torque and a car with 'no' torque. It adds up.

[Andy Bettencourt]

while we're on the subject, can anyone from the realignment era committee explain the 100# weight break to the S2000 as shown in the spreadsheet under the "other" column?

LACK of Torque as compared to the class at that weight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

no offense intended, but it's an easy to follow conversational reference to the process for which you are arguing, and which determined the bulk of existing ITR classifications. and believe me, I've kept up on the history. THANK YOU (and kk and jg and js etc..) fo getting us here. please don't be upset when we try to use the tool you worked so hard to leave us with.


I'm just trying to explain to you why the weights 'make sense' amongst posts that they don't match up and are 'embarrassing'. Knowing how they were done brings most everything into line sans calculation errors.

[JeffYoung]

The individual car advocacy is starting to get a bit old honestly, along with the insinuation we are not trying to be consistent, don't know the history of ITR (Ron and I did the initial pass at that the spreadsheet and EArl Richards and I did the first attempt at a clean up in a lot of the inconsistencies in it after it was adopted) or just don't know what we are doing.

And yes, all of this is over 50 lbs and you are FAR too worked over it.

We'll do this the right way, in the best interests of the class, and as consistently as possible. Just like you guys tried to do when you were on the ITAC.

I'll also bet you $100 that motor makes more than 25%. I actually saw ZERO gain -- none -- with the individual cylinder tuning. Ron posted it in the Mustang thread, but the real gains with these low revving, high displacement motors is on the exhaust side.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Old to you maybe. But when a new car classification is done, differently than what has been done in the past, and it results in extra weight, it's an issue that needs to be resolved. We have discussed either of the ways it could be resolved. Neither are of consequence, just that applying the classing fairly is the ultimate goal. Not making a change either way - in the short term is, like it or not, a fail in consistency.

1lb or 200, it doesn't matter. You want to strive for consistency, here is your chance. Sorry if you are taking offense, but you guys made an error you didn't know you made and it would be nice if you fixed it.

I know you will fix it, with the best intentions of the class, but if you think it's going to be 6 months to a year to get ITR cleaned up, the fair thing to do would be to admit you applied the DW in ITR not realizing that's not how the class was created and give the car a break so you don't double-whack it, until a class-wide correction is done.


The individual car advocacy is starting to get a bit old honestly, along with the insinuation we are not trying to be consistent, don't know the history of ITR (Ron and I did the initial pass at that the spreadsheet and EArl Richards and I did the first attempt at a clean up in a lot of the inconsistencies in it after it was adopted) or just don't know what we are doing.

And yes, all of this is over 50 lbs and you are FAR too worked over it.

We'll do this the right way, in the best interests of the class, and as consistently as possible. Just like you guys tried to do when you were on the ITAC.


I'll also bet you $100 that motor makes more than 25%. I actually saw ZERO gain -- none -- with the individual cylinder tuning. Ron posted it in the Mustang thread, but the real gains with these low revving, high displacement motors is on the exhaust side.I would happily pay on behalf of the builder. It would be awesome! I guess all of these motors will act exactly the same so I hope to get the same gains you got.

[Chip42]

LACK of Torque as compared to the class at that weight.

ah, roughly consistent with the ops manual. I can work with that. why didn't the type R get this? before other adders, from the math used when classified:
type R: 195*1.2*11.25 = 2635, tq = 131 lbft (factory) -> 20.1 lbs/lbft tq
S2000 (2.2L): 240*1.15*11.25 = 3105, tq = 162 lbft (factory) -> 19.17 lbs/lbft tq.

that means that the teg has less torque to weight than the S2000, and a smaller engine than is the norm. I'm sure a 100# deduct (after the FWD 6%) would be consistent:

see my next post, and andy's - got the math wrong here.

Corvette's numbers? 10.6 lbs/lbft and 12 lbs/hp at 3085# (205 hp, 290 lbft, 1.25 gain, +150tq/dipslacemnt, +50 DW)

certainly looks fair to me (small sample, but still) and it doesn't even take into account the torque gains in IT trim, which I'm betting the 'vette and other big-bore engines will get more of than the zing-bang hondas.

thoughts?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Run those Vette numbers again?

205x1.25.11.25+150=3033--->3035

+50 for DW (that no other car in ITR gets) = 3085

I don't understand your other numbers. 'Adjusted crank hp'?

S2000 is 276hp estimated crank in IT trim / 3005 is 10.88
Vette is 256hp estimated crank in IT trim / 3085 is 12.05
Type R is 243hp estimate crank in IT trim / 2535 is 10.38

This is totally congruent with the extra 150 for torque not factored. Torque to weight can be done too. Your S2000 numbers need some freshening up.

[Chip42]

Sorry - 3085, just verified the number we recommended ans that's it.

My pwr/weight for the hondas was wrong and I fixed that (below). also, I used the ops manual process weights to prove a point, which remains valid.

don't know where the other numbers came from, didn't save the calcs. pwr/wt numbers for the vette stay the same (changes in the hundredths).

summing up:
teg R (195*1.2=234 process hp), 2425#, 10.4 lbs/hp, 18.5 lbs/lbft
S2000 2.0L (240*1.15=276 process hp), 3055#, 11.1 lbs/hp, 20.0 lbs/lbft
S2000 2.2L (240*1.15=276 process hp), 3055#, 11.1 lbs/hp, 18.9 lbs/lbft
84 Vette (205*1.25=256 process hp), 3085#, 12.0 lb/hp, 10.6 lbs/lbft

the point is that the ops manual numbers WORK here, and as expected the big torque cars are still strong in terms of weight/tq EVEN AT "HUGE" WEIGHTS. current classification for FWD puts many of them at a weight deficit, the low displacement/torque deduct is missing "randomly" (from the data I have), etc..

benefits: this system seems to work, well. members can understand it because its already published. reworking the cars will balance the field better (based on these numbers). consistent with the rest of IT processes. many cars lose weight.

down side: some classifications will change, some cars gain 50lbs.


we will be rerunning the numbers even if we don't end up recommending them. I will share my portion of that effort here and to anyone who asks.

[Chip42]

Y'all keep talking about adders and subtracters for FWD and RWD based on what it does to handling. One area not addressed is RWD with engine in the rear - a real negative for handling. How about re-considering what should be done with the Porsche 911 models in IT-S and IT-R?
Is this the Rant guy -> :026:

I tend to agree but not likely to see that happen. sorry. if it makes you feel better, I have to carry 50lbs in my MR2 for having a mid engine.

[benspeed]

Watching the forums here and in STL the engineers are good at engineering the classes...I will pay you to get power to weight competitive Instead of the pro Porsche shops....light is better. I make the same power as the s2 cars and they run at 2810 vs 3055.

Who wants the retainer?

[Andy Bettencourt]

we will be rerunning the numbers even if we don't end up recommending them. I will share my portion of that effort here and to anyone who asks.

Please re-run and apply as consistently as you can. Let's not have only one car get a DW adder. Again, I see no downside to running the Vette congruent with other cars in class until you decide how to clean up ITR/Ops manual.

[JeffYoung]

Why would you think we would NOT apply as consistently as we can?

C'mon now, some of this is getting silly.


Please re-run and apply as consistently as you can. Let's not have only one car get a DW adder. Again, I see no downside to running the Vette congruent with other cars in class until you decide how to clean up ITR/Ops manual.

We've had the DW discussion on the committee. I don't think the committee's opinion is going to change. In my opinion, we are starting with "doing it right" with the Vette. If we do it your way we are going to see the weight change on that car two times over a six month period or so, and the CRB is going to ask (rightfully so) what the hell we are doing.

Yes, there is a downside and yes, there is a bigger picture than this one car.

[seckerich]

Where does the RX8 fall in your new number crunch? Need to decide if I get new glass or lexan. :023:

[JeffYoung]

Struts up front, multi-link rear right?

Shouldn't change at all if so.

[Ron Earp]

RX8 is Mazda double wishbone upfront if I'm not mistaken. Multilink rear.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If we do it your way we are going to see the weight change on that car two times over a six month period or so, and the CRB is going to ask (rightfully so) what the hell we are doing.

Yes, there is a downside and yes, there is a bigger picture than this one car.

And you can tell them the truth. That you went by the flawed Ops manual, didn't recall how cars were classed, and applied an adder when the class didn't currently call for it.

So you humbly admit this, bring the one car in line until the ITAC and the CRB align on a re-do of the whole class. Why? Because the simple fact is you should be considering a strut decuct at these weights instead of a DW adder. But that is just a time and committee thing, I don't so much care either way as long as the class is aligned.

It's really the most simple and fair thing to do. I can't see how you would see it any other way that to avoid a slightly embarrassing situation for the ITAC, unless the ITR redo was published in the next couple months, but that ain't how fast things can get done. ESPECIALLY considering the perceived desire of the ITAC to stabilize the rules for a time-period.

RX-8 is DW front.

[StephenB]

LACK of Torque as compared to the class at that weight.

So with the RX8... did we get the 100# deduct for lack of torque?
I REALLY wish they would use the SCCA forums to post HOW a car is classified and WHY. Not the process but list each new classification similar to an online journal for ALL members to reflect back on. Then we would have all known which cars got a 100# deduct. I honestly had no idea any cars got that.



RX8 is Mazda double wishbone upfront if I'm not mistaken. Multilink rear.

Ron you are correct. ITAC Should I plan to add 50# or 25# since the car is only 50% DW?

Stephen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ron you are correct. ITAC Should I plan to add 50# or 25# since the car is only 50% DW?

Stephen

Currently the adder is for front only.

[StephenB]

Booo :(

Do you know if we got the 100# deduct for torque?

[Chip42]

Where does the RX8 fall in your new number crunch? Need to decide if I get new glass or lexan. :023:

steve - in lieu of searching, can you remind me the hp numbers that are appropriate to the car? I don't have the existing classification background at hand.

[Andy Bettencourt]

steve - in lieu of searching, can you remind me the hp numbers that are appropriate to the car? I don't have the existing classification background at hand.

The RX-8 was set with real-world dyno numbers because the crank numbers are bogus. You will need to go into the files or ping the ITAC on that one.

[JeffYoung]

Stop with the flawed Ops Manual. It's the best thing the ITAC did besides the process itself (and I'll ad you were initially opposed to publishing the Process). Josh did a great job with that.

What was flawed was the reason the unwritten rule of "no DW for ITR cars" came about in the first place. "All ITR cars" do not have DW. Another flaw was using a "static" deduct for FWD and them dumping it for a percentage after a lot of cars had been reweighted. I was apart of that and acknowledge being a part of it, and we are trying to fix things by being consistent and doing things right from the start instead of changing them on the fly or fixing them later.

You of all people should know we only have a certain amount of ability to change things before the CRB (rightly) starts to wonder what we are doing.






And you can tell them the truth. That you went by the flawed Ops manual, didn't recall how cars were classed, and applied an adder when the class didn't currently call for it.

So you humbly admit this, bring the one car in line until the ITAC and the CRB align on a re-do of the whole class. Why? Because the simple fact is you should be considering a strut decuct at these weights instead of a DW adder. But that is just a time and committee thing, I don't so much care either way as long as the class is aligned.

It's really the most simple and fair thing to do. I can't see how you would see it any other way that to avoid a slightly embarrassing situation for the ITAC, unless the ITR redo was published in the next couple months, but that ain't how fast things can get done. ESPECIALLY considering the perceived desire of the ITAC to stabilize the rules for a time-period.

RX-8 is DW front.

[JeffYoung]

There is a lot of data on that one and was set with real world numbers. It won't be changed -- I'm pretty sure Lee and I will be adamant about that as it was probably the most discussed car in the ITCS after the Miata and the MR2. I'll check but I'm pretty sure it was classed with the torque deduction.


The RX-8 was set with real-world dyno numbers because the crank numbers are bogus. You will need to go into the files or ping the ITAC on that one.

[Chip42]

There is a lot of data on that one and was set with real world numbers. It won't be changed -- I'm pretty sure Lee and I will be adamant about that as it was probably the most discussed car in the ITCS after the Miata and the MR2. I'll check but I'm pretty sure it was classed with the torque deduction.

I don't have the data from before the corrected classification went out feb '09, but it looks like a known HP number of 262 crank was used (translates to ~215 wheel), as was the -100 lbs for low tq. being consistent with the ops manual would add 50 lbs for suspension. otherwise the classification wouldn't change.

and like I said - I'm goignt o run my numbers WITH DW, without DW, and with and without strut and FWD struts. it's a lot of work to build the data and spreadsheet, but once it's done the core numbers my spreadsheet makes the varients easy. we'll run them all and evaluate the results agains curb weights, pwr/wt, tq/wt etc.. there will be no more than ONE package of recommended changes to the CRB.

[JeffYoung]

I agree on ONE recommended change.

I'll do all domestics, and the BMWs, Nissans and Toyotas. You get the Hondas/Acuras and any other oddballs?

Make sense?

[Chip42]

I agree on ONE recommended change.

I'll do all domestics, and the BMWs, Nissans and Toyotas. You get the Hondas/Acuras and any other oddballs?

Make sense?

consider it done. I have all of the BMWs and yotas in already. get domestics and nissans.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why are you getting uptight about that statement? I was on the committee when we were revising it, it IS the best thing that has happened to IT in a while...but that doesn't mean it's perfect. And by that I mean that when it went to 'print' it wasn't completed yet. You guys forgot to write in what the process entails for ITR cars. It's ok, but it's fact. And I was in favor of publishing that document once we got it done - ONLY if it explained every in and out of what the ITAC could do...which is why it took about 9 months to get finalized. A quicky 'process' blurb would have only created more questions than answers.

Nobody said 'all ITR cars' had DW's. What was said was that the core car in ITR had significantly advanced suspensions to not warrant the separation, except when it was a strut-based FWDer. That was the process for ITR. Nobody codified it before it went to print, and now you are classing cars differently than the entire category...due to an error. It's OK, we acknowledge it and we decide whats the best way to fix it.

I submit again simply that you suck it up, pull the 50 back off the Vette and hunker down and strategize on what you want as a committee. +50 for all advanced? +50 for just DW's? -50 for all strut? -50 for strut and FWD? The ship won't turn in say, 6 months, so don't hang the new classification out to dry. I don't care how 'little' you think the weight is. My inbox is full of PM's asking me to justify +150lbs for excessive torque. It all adds up.

I know fully what the 'old' CRB will accept and not accept. I know a couple current members who call me all the time asking about certain issues and I am confident that when you lay out a good case for something, they will get it. I also know that doing what is right is more important than making one or two CRB members happy because they have better things to do than deal with IT.

Let's end the debate, I am sure we know each others position. No further progress is to be made. Time to go build that 300whp cease-fire V8. :D


Stop with the flawed Ops Manual. It's the best thing the ITAC did besides the process itself (and I'll ad you were initially opposed to publishing the Process). Josh did a great job with that.

What was flawed was the reason the unwritten rule of "no DW for ITR cars" came about in the first place. "All ITR cars" do not have DW. Another flaw was using a "static" deduct for FWD and them dumping it for a percentage after a lot of cars had been reweighted. I was apart of that and acknowledge being a part of it, and we are trying to fix things by being consistent and doing things right from the start instead of changing them on the fly or fixing them later.

You of all people should know we only have a certain amount of ability to change things before the CRB (rightly) starts to wonder what we are doing.

[lateapex911]

I don't have the data from before the corrected classification went out feb '09, but it looks like a known HP number of 262 crank was used (translates to ~215 wheel), as was the -100 lbs for low tq. being consistent with the ops manual would add 50 lbs for suspension. otherwise the classification wouldn't change.

and like I said - I'm goignt o run my numbers WITH DW, without DW, and with and without strut and FWD struts. it's a lot of work to build the data and spreadsheet, but once it's done the core numbers my spreadsheet makes the varients easy. we'll run them all and evaluate the results agains curb weights, pwr/wt, tq/wt etc.. there will be no more than ONE package of recommended changes to the CRB.

The RX8 had multiple, unbiased, highly accurate and consistent sources that were within 1-2 WHP of each other (In IT equiv spec) and that number was 212 at the wheel. The committee decided to make that 215 to ....be conservative, I guess. There was a vote on that number, and a confidence factor noted. I took notes, and issued minutes and posted it to the board. It's all there. You should be able to see who voted and how. There should be no question about this, and if so, the institutional memory is very questionable. Just sayin', lol)

Stephen regarding your desire to have that information documented publicly, I agree. I've long been a proponent of that. I'd go so far as posting those same minutes that I mentioned above, if I were in charge.
When I was on the ITAC, I felt that my job was to represent the member and do the right thing for the category to serve the membership. And in my eyes, they are the boss, and have every right to know exactly how their category is being run. There should be nothing to hide, and anyone on a committee should be ok with having their thoughts documented.

When we did the initial ITR classification, the DW (or 'advanced suspension" concept was considered to be the 'majority position'. More than half the cars, in the committees eyes had decent suspensions, so it was decided that there would be no adder for such. Now, as I recall, nobody sat down and did an actual count of cars and busted it out by actual components and geometry, because it was felt that the conclusion was easily reasonable and representative. Each class has always rotated around 'norms' for the class. But a 'norm' for C is different than a 'norm for S.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think I can take the blame for the DW confusion. I knew, when I wrote the Ops Manual, that the only suspension-type adjustments that we were making in ITR were the live axle RWD deduct, and the front-strut FWD deduct. I think maybe I just didn't get it written down right and during the review process, I didn't notice (and I guess no one else did either!)

I think if you review the weights, you'll find that those two adjustments are the only two used.

Quoted for note. I would think the Ops manual could be updated and the Vette corrected and the short term-pain is over. Take time and revamp process if committee deems it's more important than class stability in the near future.

[Ron Earp]

My inbox is full of PM's asking me to justify +150lbs for excessive torque. It all adds up.

Let's end the debate, I am sure we know each others position. No further progress is to be made. Time to go build that 300whp cease-fire V8. :D

Sounds like they didn't do much research on their C4 vette choice before commissioning the build. Of course it gets a weight adders for large displacement/low-RPM-power.

300 whp I don't believe. But I suspect you'll see north of 240 whp, with a torque curve that is flat like my desk and hitting the 280+ mark.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Sounds like they didn't do much research on their C4 vette choice before commissioning the build. Of course it gets a weight adders for large displacement/low-RPM-power.

300 whp I don't believe. But I suspect you'll see north of 240 whp, with a torque curve that is flat like my desk and hitting the 280+ mark.

No, no. The builder knew it was coming (I had actually told him I thought +100) but people on here not familiar with the process wondering why so much etc.

Torque will be amazing, no doubt. The 300whp was in jest as you know.

[lateapex911]

Sounds like they didn't do much research on their C4 vette choice before commissioning the build. Of course it gets a weight adders for large displacement/low-RPM-power.

300 whp I don't believe. But I suspect you'll see north of 240 whp, with a torque curve that is flat like my desk and hitting the 280+ mark.

I am SURE they knew the 100 or 150 was coming. but I bet the 50 for DW surprised them.

(My recollection on the ITR tq thing was that it was discussed for MONTHS....like over 6 months.. What IS torque, how do you ID it? how much is too much? Is it the tq CURVE that counts? How can you FIND a the tq curve for every car. (if you can't then it's not applicable ), is it a relationship to HP? Do you stick a low hp car with the penalty if it has high tq? Or just high hp AND high tq cars. What about the transmission? LOTS of debate.
Then there was the 'if it has a lot of tq, does it get a graduated adder?' question. 50, 100, 150.? If so, how do you decide? What are the break points?
In the end, I think the committee decided it was too difficult to identify levels of tq, and a procedure for that was deemed impossible with the resources at hand, and decided that it was one of those things you knew it when you saw it, but couldn't really describe. (This was around the time I left the committee, I think, so anyone with better facts feel free to correct me)
I think, in the end it was just simplified with a "we will know it when we see it, and if we see it it's getting 150" kinda thing.)

I know a lot of that discussion IS in the notes on the board

[Chip42]

Watching the forums here and in STL the engineers are good at engineering the classes...I will pay you to get power to weight competitive Instead of the pro Porsche shops....light is better. I make the same power as the s2 cars and they run at 2810 vs 3055.

Who wants the retainer?

Ben,
submit dyno data and a build sheet and it will be considered. find more examples and it adds to the case. we really can't make a case from one example.

[Ron Earp]

Then there was the 'if it has a lot of tq, does it get a graduated adder?' question. 50, 100, 150.? If so, how do you decide?

Well, if the 5L Pony cars got 100lbs, which they did as I recall, then for damn sure the 5.7L Corvette should get at least 100 lbs.

Process weight for the 94/95 Mustang GT at 215 stock hp is 3090 lbs using 11.5 as the hp/wt target. The ITCS listed weight is 3195, so it looks like it picked up 105 lbs somewhere.

[JeffYoung]

Multiplier in ITR is 11.25 so that probably explains the random 5 lbs.

It most likely got 150 lbs for torque because it then had 50 deducted for the live rear.

That car will get dickstomped by a C4 Vette with more torque, equivalent if not more power, lower weight, better aero, lower CG and better suspension.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, if the 5L Pony cars got 100lbs, which they did as I recall, then for damn sure the 5.7L Corvette should get at least 100 lbs.

Process weight for the 94/95 Mustang GT at 215 stock hp is 3090 lbs using 11.5 as the hp/wt target. The ITCS listed weight is 3195, so it looks like it picked up 105 lbs somewhere.

There is a graduated scale. 50-100-150.

ITR pw/weight is 11.25 not 11.5.

[Ron Earp]

Multiplier in ITR is 11.25 so that probably explains the random 5 lbs.

It most likely got 150 lbs for torque because it then had 50 deducted for the live rear.

That car will get dickstomped by a C4 Vette with more torque, equivalent if not more power, lower weight, better aero, lower CG and better suspension.

Well, I thought it was 11.25 and did the calculations but they are even more off. I convinced myself it was 11.5.

If it is 11.25 then:

215 x 1.25 x 11.25 = 3023 lbs. Spec weight is 3195, so the difference is 172 lbs. Where did the 172 lb adder come from? And the other V8 cars have trouble too.

1996-1998 Mustang at 225 stock hp, the weight is 3164. But it is listed in the ITCS at 3390 lbs! Where did the 225 lbs adder come from?

87-98 Camaro, 230 stock hp, the weight is 3234 lbs. Listed weight is 3465 lbs, a 230 lb adder. What for?

All there of these cars are off weight calculated using standard procedures. I got a feeling there is more wrong in ITR than just double wishbone cars.

[JeffYoung]

Ditto. However, while I have not checked, I'm pretty sure the first v8s were run through at either 30 or 35%.

We did the Vette at 25% since we don't have any real build data for it, but I suspect that number is low.



Well, I thought it was 11.25 and did the calculations but they are even more off. I convinced myself it was 11.5.

If it is 11.25 then:

215 x 1.25 x 11.25 = 3023 lbs. Spec weight is 3195, so the difference is 172 lbs. Where did the 172 lb adder come from? And the other V8 cars have trouble too.

1996-1998 Mustang at 225 stock hp, the weight is 3164. But it is listed in the ITCS at 3390 lbs! Where did the 225 lbs adder come from?

87-98 Camaro, 230 stock hp, the weight is 3234 lbs. Listed weight is 3465 lbs, a 230 lb adder. What for?

I got a feeling there is more wrong in ITR than just double wishbone cars.

[Greg Amy]

Let not one person on this forum complain again that the ITAC works behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms... :)

There's a reason you don't want to watch sausage being made. ;)

[Ron Earp]

Ditto. However, while I have not checked, I'm pretty sure the first v8s were run through at either 30 or 35%.

We did the Vette at 25% since we don't have any real build data for it, but I suspect that number is low.

I suspect the Pony car gains are speced too high.

At 30%
94/95 Mustang 3144 lbs, spec of 3195. Looks like 50 lb tq adder.
96-98 Mustang 3290 lbs, spec of 3390. Looks like 100 lb tq adder.
87-92 Camaro 3363 lbs, spec of 3465. Looks like 100 lb tq adder.

At 35%
94/95 Mustang 3265lbs, spec of 3195.
96-98 Mustang 3417lbs, spec of 3390.
87-92 Camaro 3493lbs, spec of 3465.

So, 30% seems like where they were speced and it looks like torque adders were inconsistent and axle deducts were not applied at all, neither was a strut deduct.

[lateapex911]

Ditto. However, while I have not checked, I'm pretty sure the first v8s were run through at either 30 or 35%.

We did the Vette at 25% since we don't have any real build data for it, but I suspect that number is low.

The first camaros, etc, (thanks for the work on those Ron and Jeff...(for those that don't know, Ron was very ehlfpul with the data and provided a proposal to get these cars into ITR)) was, as you know, hotly contested.
There were those on the committee who thought they'd make huge power. or they didn't belong because they'd be too easy to cheat up, etc. OR that they should get a 40% factor because they'd all be cheated up and impossible to police. Sheesh, it was crazy, LOL.

In the end, they got what I thought was an aggressive factor, either 30 or 35%. Andy?

[JeffYoung]

Amen bro. And more and more making the freaking sausage ain't much fun.

Driving the sausage is.


Let not one person on this forum complain again that the ITAC works behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms... :)

There's a reason you don't want to watch sausage being made. ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

In the end, they got what I thought was an aggressive factor, either 30 or 35%. Andy?



My memories ain't free anymore. Setting up a PayPal account. :D

[Greg Amy]

Driving the sausage is [fun].
Quoted for posterity...sorry, couldn't resist...

;)

[JeffYoung]

Now come on. I'm sure you've driven your sausage a few times.....

[Ron Earp]

In the end, they got what I thought was an aggressive factor, either 30 or 35%. Andy?

We need to be consistent with the V8s. Either run the vette through like the Pony cars were or fix them all. They are clearly askew now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Now come on. I'm sure you've driven your sausage a few times.....

Only in college, but he says he was drunk.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, I thought it was 11.25 and did the calculations but they are even more off. I convinced myself it was 11.5.

If it is 11.25 then:

215 x 1.25 x 11.25 = 3023 lbs. Spec weight is 3195, so the difference is 172 lbs. Where did the 172 lb adder come from? And the other V8 cars have trouble too.

1996-1998 Mustang at 225 stock hp, the weight is 3164. But it is listed in the ITCS at 3390 lbs! Where did the 225 lbs adder come from?

87-98 Camaro, 230 stock hp, the weight is 3234 lbs. Listed weight is 3465 lbs, a 230 lb adder. What for?

All there of these cars are off weight calculated using standard procedures. I got a feeling there is more wrong in ITR than just double wishbone cars.

First, we have established through the history that there is nothing wrong with the DW classifications - except the Vette. There is no DW adder in ITR.

Second, there is no strut deduction in ITR for RWD cars. Just FWD cars. Also established.

All those V8's were done at 30%. The CRB was NOT going to let them in without that number. Sucked but we said we would do it and then change it when we had numbers to back us up.

215 @ 30% with a 50lb torque adder is right on.
225 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.
230 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.

[callard]

Only in college, but he says he was drunk.
If the engine was in the rear, he paid a penalty. :p

[Ron Earp]

215 @ 30% with a 50lb torque adder is right on.
225 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.
230 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.

And a Vette:

205 @ 30% with 150lb torque adder, 3150 lbs, much lighter than some of the Pony cars. That doesn't pass the smell test. I seriously doubt that 350 inch motor won't see higher outputs than the 302/305 Ford/GM twins, plus it has better brakes, aero, and suspension (things we don't worry about in IT).

[JeffYoung]

Vette is at 25%.

[jjjanos]

Amen bro. And more and more making the freaking sausage ain't much fun.

Driving the sausage is.

Is that a euphemism for driving a race car or something we learned about it health class?

[Andy Bettencourt]

And a Vette:

205 @ 30% with 150lb torque adder, 3150 lbs, much lighter than some of the Pony cars. That doesn't pass the smell test. I seriously doubt that 350 inch motor won't see higher outputs than the 302/305 Ford/GM twins, plus it has better brakes, aero, and suspension (things we don't worry about in IT).

Just based on cubic inches? Come on. The car was 205 stock vs. much more for those cars. The simple addition of the TPI manifold in 1985 bumped power 25hp!!! That's over 350lbs in ITR weight.

292mm brakes bro. That ain't that big. Take a stroll through the ITR ITCS...

If you were to class those Pony cars today (I would be writing my letter now), they would use 25%, COULD use a -50 for solid axle, and COULD use a deduction (or addition) for brake size.

[JeffYoung]

The cubes suggest big power.

Tell me what that intake flows and with your cam specs I can give you a pretty close estimate of theoretical max hp (need the throttle body diameter too).

Like I said in a PM, you push 417 CFM through that manifold at even 80% VE you are looking at 240 ish whp.

[Ron Earp]

Just based on cubic inches? Come on. The car was 205 stock vs. much more for those cars. The simple addition of the TPI manifold in 1985 bumped power 25hp!!! That's over 350lbs in ITR weight.
.

At some point common sense has to be used.

Interestingly enough, this isn't unlike my Mustang build. 1998 Mustang, 150hp. 1999 Mustang, 190hp with the only apparent change being the intake. However, digging deep into it things are not as they seem. And I suspect the situation is the same for the 205hp C4 Vette.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Jeff, what does your magic HP book say if the manifold were to only flow between 170-190cfm?

[JeffYoung]

That you are in trouble.

[Andy Bettencourt]

At some point common sense has to be used.

Interestingly enough, this isn't unlike my Mustang build. 1998 Mustang, 150hp. 1999 Mustang, 190hp with the only apparent change being the intake. However, digging deep into it things are not as they seem. And I suspect the situation is the same for the 205hp C4 Vette.

Or at some point actual research has to be done instead of guessing based on other completely different motors. :shrug:

[Andy Bettencourt]

That you are in trouble.

Yes.

Hopefully some improvements will be made with legal porting but gee-whiz Chevy!!!

[lateapex911]

At some point common sense has to be used.

Interestingly enough, this isn't unlike my Mustang build. 1998 Mustang, 150hp. 1999 Mustang, 190hp with the only apparent change being the intake. However, digging deep into it things are not as they seem. And I suspect the situation is the same for the 205hp C4 Vette.

it's funny, when you say that I might agree but I have NO idea what you mean by it, in this case! One mans common sense isn't always anothers LOL

[Ron Earp]

Or at some point actual research has to be done instead of guessing based on other completely different motors. :shrug:

I've done a little research on the C4 and I think it has a lot of potential.

We all make educated guesses based on our experience. My experience tells me that large displacement two valve motors in IT-trim always impress with gains. I'm impartial to your ITR build as I'm not funding it, racing against it, or planning to build one - in fact, I wrote a letter asking to have it classed. I feel that common sense indicates it should weigh more than similarly powered Camaros and Mustangs that have poorer suspensions, but that is just my opinion and realize it has no foundation in IT-land.

[benspeed]

Ben,
submit dyno data and a build sheet and it will be considered. find more examples and it adds to the case. we really can't make a case from one example.


Thanks Chip. I'll rustle up performance/dyno data on the S2 and the E36. Those cars are making the same power and weigh much less. Proud to submit my build sheet - been a very comprehensive process with top Porsche shops. My beef isn't about power, it's about weight.

Its very interesting to watch the experts work out how a car is classed on this thread, but it also makes me scratch my head and consider how poorly I can play this aspect of the game, hence my joke about paying an expert a retainer to help lobby my case :-)

[lateapex911]

Ben I know your tongue is in your cheek. But....the classing thing should be pretty much streamlined and automated.

The ITAC has, and continues to, use a process that considers basic variables, the cars stock hp and spits out a number. That number assumes several things, like an expected built horsepower.

Trouble starts when things don't line up.

Your car, and most Porsches, really, are classic examples. Most just don't make the presumed 25%. (The RX-8 is another, but it is opposite what earlier rotaries did, which was vastly exceed the 25% assumption. Real numbers were dug up for that classification, and they came from outside the IT world, and there was an extremely high degree of confidence in the evidence.)

In cases like yours, you're really trying to prove a negative. And that gets tricky. You've got skin in the game, and even though we all know you're a good guy, and the ITAC assumes you are too, you can see the obvious conflict of interest that arises.

So, in order to overcome that, you'll need to be exceedingly forthright, and show how you have turned over every possible stone. AND, if you can provide OTHER builds of separate cars, that helps your case.

Its a frustrating situation from both perspectives. But, I assure you, there's no 'game' needed. The ITAC is pretty by the book.

[Chip42]

I've done a little research on the C4 and I think it has a lot of potential.
...
I feel that common sense indicates it should weigh more similarly powered Camaros and Mustangs that have poorer suspensions, but that is just my opinion and realize it has no foundation in IT-land.

This is why I support a DW adder - it's not much, but it's something. vs the pony cars it adds up to 100 lbs which is in the range of 3%, or a half step in the process gain.

and keep in mind that the CRB hasn't made a decision on the vette as recommended. they could just as easily come back and say "no way" or "add weight". at which point, hopefully, we'll have this eval done and, with more data from interested parties (hint hint: crbscca.com), be able to reply with "yeah we looked deeper and think X about the vette" or "no, the rest of ITR needs the following adjustments:...". or maybe "we researched it, it's all good, that thing's a sheep in wolf's clothes, stop thinking with your eyes." (likely a hybrid of all of these)

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is why I support a DW adder - it's not much, but it's something. vs the pony cars it adds up to 100 lbs which is in the range of 3%, or a half step in the process gain.

and keep in mind that the CRB hasn't made a decision on the vette as recommended. they could just as easily come back and say "no way" or "add weight". at which point, hopefully, we'll have this eval done and, with more data from interested parties (hint hint: crbscca.com), be able to reply with "yeah we looked deeper and think X about the vette" or "no, the rest of ITR needs the following adjustments:...". or maybe "we researched it, it's all good, that thing's a sheep in wolf's clothes, stop thinking with your eyes." (likely a hybrid of all of these)

Right, because that transverse leaf-spring technology is state of the art!!!!

And good luck with that CRB thing...

[benspeed]

Yo Jake - yes, tongue in cheek. I suppose I shouldn't say I'm bad at playing the classing game but rather I lack the knowledge to make a solid case for less weight to get a little closer to the cars I race against. I'm just your typical driver looking to get more competitive. Chip is right - empiracal data must be collected by me to make a solid case. I'm not sure where to get it, but hey, gotta give that a shot and I might learn a thing or two in the process.

Andy - I will be sure to run my stuff past you and pay a nominal fee :-)

(Greg, that sausage anology was perfect)

[JeffYoung]

Been looking for flow numbers on this manifold. Found a 572 cfm number for the two throttle bodies.

For the intake found 178 CFM at 28". Is that 28" a manifold pressure number? Or is it at a certain valve lift?

I have flow at various valve lifts as well and it is GOOD but hard to tell if that was done with the intake on it or not.

I've also seen pictures of the ports and it LOOKS LIKE the restriction that GM clearly just fill welded in stops less than 1" in. You may get some good gains with an IT legal gasket match/port job.

[lateapex911]

Been looking for flow numbers on this manifold. Found a 572 cfm number for the two throttle bodies.

For the intake found 178 CFM at 28". Is that 28" a manifold pressure number? Or is it at a certain valve lift?

I have flow at various valve lifts as well and it is GOOD but hard to tell if that was done with the intake on it or not.

I've also seen pictures of the ports and it LOOKS LIKE the restriction that GM clearly just fill welded in stops less than 1" in. You may get some good gains with an IT legal gasket match/port job. Can you link those pictures??? That is very interesting

[JeffYoung]

Numbers here:

http://members.shaw.ca/corvette.84/crossfire.html

Pictures here:

http://users.swko.net/~lionsden/crossfire.htm

About halfway in is a comparison of the manifold "blocked" (on the right) and "unblocked" (on the left). Look at the unblocked one. The runner drops away quickly from the port. Appears that block really couldn't extend much into the manifold given the sharp taper down.

[JoshS]

215 @ 30% with a 50lb torque adder is right on.
225 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.
230 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.

IIRC, and I'm pretty sure I do, they all have a 100lb torque adder. The 50lb difference on the one line is due to lousy brakes.

[Chip42]

jeff - 28"(of Hg/Mercury, about 1atm or of water/H2)/wc, about 1psi or ~0.07atm) is a barometric pressure reading, indicating the test pressure differential applied to the measured item (i.e. head or manifold) which induces the flow of air. kinda like voltage for amps, temperature for heat, etc...

the "numbers" page you found shows 182/137 cfm in/ex at 28"Hg and 0.400" lift, which is close to the max valve lift also shown on that page. based on the pictures you supplied, I'd say you're right about the potential for significant flow gains.

Andy, my admittedly limited experience with the CRB has been one of good cooperation and support. I know you have had bad experiences. I hope that maybe you got them to see the light, so to speak, but no matter, I appreciate your efforts, help, and jaundice.

[Chip42]

IIRC, and I'm pretty sure I do, they all have a 100lb torque adder. The 50lb difference on the one line is due to lousy brakes.

the spreadsheet shows -50 for brakes, -50 solid axle, and +150 torque on the 89-93/94-95 mustangs, same without brake adjust on the 87-92 camarobirds. they all use a 30% gain and all match the GCR. mustang weight difference is the result of 10hp: (10*1.3*11.25=146.3)

the only +100 tq adder in there is for the V6 94-98 'stang

this is the doc from Kirk Knestis, created march 2008 (thanks to KK for this)

[JeffYoung]

Got it on the 28" -- thanks.


jeff - 28"(of Hg/Mercury, about 1atm or of water/H2)/wc, about 1psi or ~0.07atm) is a barometric pressure reading, indicating the test pressure differential applied to the measured item (i.e. head or manifold) which induces the flow of air. kinda like voltage for amps, temperature for heat, etc...

the "numbers" page you found shows 182/137 cfm in/ex at 28"Hg and 0.400" lift, which is close to the max valve lift also shown on that page. based on the pictures you supplied, I'd say you're right about the potential for significant flow gains.

Andy, my admittedly limited experience with the CRB has been one of good cooperation and support. I know you have had bad experiences. I hope that maybe you got them to see the light, so to speak, but no matter, I appreciate your efforts, help, and jaundice.

THe other thing with these era FI systems - the fuel and timing curves are all screwed up for economy and emissions. You'll see big gains once you start correcting that.

Agreed on the CRB -- since about February of 2010, we have all worked well together. Jim Wheeler, Bob Dowie, Chris Albin, Peter Keane, Jim Drago -- all supportive and helpful.

[Z3_GoCar]

Let not one person on this forum complain again that the ITAC works behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms... :)

There's a reason you don't want to watch sausage being made. ;)

I bet you posted that while behind closed doors in a smoke filled room.

Welcome to Las Vegas, I hope the wind wasn't too bad while you were outside.

[Ron Earp]

the spreadsheet shows -50 for brakes, -50 solid axle, and +150 torque on the 89-93/94-95 mustangs, same without brake adjust on the 87-92 camarobirds. they all use a 30% gain and all match the GCR. mustang weight difference is the result of 10hp: (10*1.3*11.25=146.3)

the only +100 tq adder in there is for the V6 94-98 'stang

this is the doc from Kirk Knestis, created march 2008 (thanks to KK for this)

V6 94-98 Mustangs are in ITS. They shouldn't appear on a ITR sheet.


IIRC, and I'm pretty sure I do, they all have a 100lb torque adder. The 50lb difference on the one line is due to lousy brakes.

94/95 V8 Mustangs have good brakes in Pony car land, four wheel discs. They shouldn't get a deduct for poor brakes. Was the ITAC giving deducts for poor brakes?

[Ron Earp]

Numbers here:

http://members.shaw.ca/corvette.84/crossfire.html

Pictures here:

http://users.swko.net/~lionsden/crossfire.htm

About halfway in is a comparison of the manifold "blocked" (on the right) and "unblocked" (on the left). Look at the unblocked one. The runner drops away quickly from the port. Appears that block really couldn't extend much into the manifold given the sharp taper down.

Interesting.

I see a cam duration that is somewhat okay at .050" lift, about what I'd expect and what I have to deal with on my own car. Valve lift isn't bad at all on a per cylinder basis and given the size of the valves, 1.94" and 1.5", typical Chevy sizes. Stock the throttle bodies flowing around 572 cfm isn't too shabby at all. If those head flow values are worth a damn then that is pretty good stock, quite good. I suppose we'll never know if the flow values are with the intake in place or not. Those boys are doing some trick work boring those throttle bodies out. Clearly illegal on the latter but I'd also say unnecessary based on the stock flow and other components in the engine.

All in all, impressive. I'd build it!

[Chip42]

V6 94-98 Mustangs are in ITS. They shouldn't appear on a ITR sheet.
it's an IT sheet. just making a point.

94/95 V8 Mustangs have good brakes in Pony car land, four wheel discs. They shouldn't get a deduct for poor brakes. Was the ITAC giving deducts for poor brakes?
yes. the spreadsheet has a -50 in the brakes column, ops manual calls out the same (+ or - depending). I suppose that they were seen as small or ineffective - we'll have to keep digging for that justification.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There are some conspiracy theorists that Chevy intentionally screwed the heads and kep the intake crappy so that the revision with TPI would look that much better. Not sure how much I buy into it but the heads are CLEARLY blocked. A new upper to that intake would have done a world of good to...it was developed...just not used.

This car will be interesting for sure. Not worried about torque at all. It's revs and HP...and brakes.

[quadzjr]

I ams sure it has been explained before, but search is failing me. How come a strut suspension on the powered wheels of a FWD car gets a weight break but a strut suspension on the powered wheels of a RWD does not?

The problems inherit with the strut suspension are consistent no matter which wheels are driven.

What was the percentage diffference/standard deviation from the norm of the class to warrant a torque increase/decrease adder?

Also why are all these adders only applicable to ITR but not ITS-ITC?

[Chip42]

per the ops manual all classes recieve the following adders:
DW: +50
mid engined: +50
abnortmally small or large brakes: ±50

and these are class specific:
FWD Torque/diplacement low/high
ITR 6% -100/+150
ITS 5.5% -50/+100
ITA 2% -50/+100
ITB 2% 0/+50
ITC 0% 0/+50

ITR FWD and strut, -50
ITR rear solid axle, -50

I'm going to be long winded here on the of chance that someone reading this needs background you and I already know:
the DW/Strut concept is only for the front axle of the car. I agree with you that the strut is a hamper to the driven wheels more so than to the objective "front". particularly with front engine / rear drive cars, a front strut can be made to have a very acceptable camber curve, even at lowered ride heights. the typical transverse driveline (usually FWD) Mac strut is so space compromised it usually results in a poor or even detrimental camber curve. cars like the AW11 MR2, with a strut at the front and rear (driven) wheels which is ALSO a packaging compromise are rare - I think there are only 3-4 in the ITCS that are even close. so the process is blind to it. we could argue subjectively on a per case basis, but I think we have bigger fish to fry right now, both in general terms and with the MkI MR2 specifically.

[JeffYoung]

I say we junk all these adders/deducts.

I'm about 25% serious.

[Chip42]

I'm willing to rethink them but wihtout a process revamp that considers torque in the weight equation I want to keep some sort of torque adder. FWD deduct is also needed, but again, I'm willing to reconsider what it is.

the problem with my willingness is that it goes against stability, and I'm a bigger fan of stability than I am of "fixing" things that can't be perfect, anyhow. in the Case of ITR I personally feel that a change here, now, to bring it in line with what we have said for a year now is how we do things is more a nod to stability than leaving it alone and rewriting the ops manual to match. I also think the existing listings are biased heavily to RWD and that the ops process is better there, so it's a correction in my mind as well.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chip,

Can we agree that we have proven that the Ops Manual is in error on the DW's in ITR? The classing shows it, the historical recollections support it and Josh's post finishes the debate off.

Can we please fix this?


per the ops manual all classes recieve the following adders:
DW: +50
mid engined: +50
abnortmally small or large brakes: ±50

and these are class specific:
FWD Torque/diplacement low/high
ITR 6% -100/+150
ITS 5.5% -50/+100
ITA 2% -50/+100
ITB 2% 0/+50
ITC 0% 0/+50

ITR FWD and strut, -50
ITR rear solid axle, -50

I'm going to be long winded here on the of chance that someone reading this needs background you and I already know:
the DW/Strut concept is only for the front axle of the car. I agree with you that the strut is a hamper to the driven wheels more so than to the objective "front". particularly with front engine / rear drive cars, a front strut can be made to have a very acceptable camber curve, even at lowered ride heights. the typical transverse driveline (usually FWD) Mac strut is so space compromised it usually results in a poor or even detrimental camber curve. cars like the AW11 MR2, with a strut at the front and rear (driven) wheels which is ALSO a packaging compromise are rare - I think there are only 3-4 in the ITCS that are even close. so the process is blind to it. we could argue subjectively on a per case basis, but I think we have bigger fish to fry right now, both in general terms and with the MkI MR2 specifically.

[JeffYoung]

There is a really good argument (Josh presented a paper on it) that torque does not matter. If you have a reasonably good gearbox and can keep the motor in the power band, torque doesn't matter. HP is how we measure output/work, not torque.

I'm actually not willing to rethink them and don't think we ought to adjust any of them. The Process has been too fluid for too long and it needs to settle, even with a lot of things in it I don't personallly agree with. But, even so, on the whole the Process works and it works well.

The best way to screw it up would be to constantly change it so that we lose the stability that IT is (at least) known for.

So I think at the end of the day we are saying exactly the same thing.


I'm willing to rethink them but wihtout a process revamp that considers torque in the weight equation I want to keep some sort of torque adder. FWD deduct is also needed, but again, I'm willing to reconsider what it is.

the problem with my willingness is that it goes against stability, and I'm a bigger fan of stability than I am of "fixing" things that can't be perfect, anyhow.

[ShelbyRacer]

So wait, the Mustangs get a deduct for poor brakes, but the non-1LE Camarobirds don't? They're stopping a 3500lb car with 10.5" brakes, and that's not poor? Yes, they have rear discs that are huge, but they don't actually have much to do with slowing or stopping the car...

A better way to go would be to allow the 1LE stuff with an adder for decent brakes.

Straight comparison-
3200lb. Mustang with 11" brakes is poor
3500lb. Camaro with 10.5" brakes is good

[scratches head]

Andy- I'd be very interested to see the actual gains made on the x-fire engine in IT trim. I have my hypotheses about potentials, and I'd love to know how close I am.

[JeffYoung]

Doubtful (to me). The committee discussed this on the last call. The rationale for not having it doesn't make sense. Couple that with not wanting to change the Ops Manual except in extraordinary circumstances and my guess is it stays.


Chip,

Can we agree that we have proven that the Ops Manual is in error on the DW's in ITR? The classing shows it, the historical recollections support it and Josh's post finishes the debate off.

Can we please fix this?

[benspeed]

Got some great advice on this thread and from my bud Andy. Just want to say thanks that this debate was online - super informative and really learned a bunch from you guys. The "proving a negative" approach vs proving what is "known" now makes a great deal of sense and has aligned the way I look at how to compare cars to how the ITAC approaches things.

Now I have a plan...

[quadzjr]

There is a really good argument (Josh presented a paper on it) that torque does not matter. If you have a reasonably good gearbox and can keep the motor in the power band, torque doesn't matter. HP is how we measure output/work, not torque.

I'm actually not willing to rethink them and don't think we ought to adjust any of them. The Process has been too fluid for too long and it needs to settle, even with a lot of things in it I don't personallly agree with. But, even so, on the whole the Process works and it works well.

The best way to screw it up would be to constantly change it so that we lose the stability that IT is (at least) known for.

So I think at the end of the day we are saying exactly the same thing.

Not puting a vote for or against the process that I like alot. However the idea that torque does not play a role in IT cars that cannot change their gear box is simply not true.

If you can adopt your transmission to match your output a torque disadvantage will be lessened but not eliminated. I do know that many pro racing sereis would disagree with this statement. Two within the last 10 years have had to have major revamps because the lack or torque control. The two that come to mind are the ex JGTC GT500 class and the ACO Lemans 24hr (ALMS / LMES).

When Nissan introduced the 350zwith 500hp and a rumored 750ft/lbs it dominate the GT500 class over cars that were still working with lower displacement boosted cars. By the end of the firts and into the second season it was limit the motor to 500hp and get as much torque as you could. Later rules were changed and the class was disolved and is now Super GT.

When Audi introduced the R10 Diesel they trampled the petro cars that had more hp. Consistently every year including this last year the petro cars have more hp and have a higher top speed however they need to get moving out of a corner. Many things have been done to try to reign in the diesel cars, the biggest one was last year that significantly reduced the power and torque of the disels but they still dominated.

We drive IT cars, we cannot change our gear ratios to better utilize our engines output, thusly we cannot work around a torque deficnecy like they have done in pro series. We are stuck with our stock tranmissions. For your assumption that torque does not matter would require the cars less torque to have a reasonably good gear box. This is simply not the case in the majority of the shit boxes in IT. Especially in the lower ranks of unsporty cars in the ITA,B, and C range.

[JeffYoung]

Show your math.

I'll see if I can find Josh's paper, but the calculation is how much time is spent in what area of the curve. For most reasonable five speed gear boxes, this seems to be a wash.

It's why an ITS Mazda RX7 with 180 whp and 130 wtq competes just fine with Z cars and my car with a lot more torque.


If you can adopt your transmission to match your output a torque disadvantage will be lessened but not eliminated. I am very opend minded but I do know that almost every other pro racing sereis would disagree with this statement. Two within the last 10 years have had ot have major revamps because the lack or torque control. The two that come to mind are the ex JGTC GT500 class and the ACO Lemans 24hr (ALMS / LMES).

When Nissan introduced the 350zwith 500hp and a rumored 750ft/lbs it dominate the GT500 class over cars that were still working with lower displacement boosted cars. By the end of the firts and into the second season it was limit the motor to 500hp and get as much torque as you could. Later rules were changed and the class was disolved and is now Super GT.

When Audi introduced the R10 Diesel they trampled the petro cars that had more hp. Consistently every year including this last year the petro cars have more hp and have a higher top speed however they need to get moving out of a corner. Many things have been done to try to reign in the diesel cars, the biggest one was last year that significantly reduced the power and torque of the disels but they still dominated.

We drive IT cars, we cannot change our gear ratios to better utilize our engines output, thusly we cannot work around a torque deficnecy like they have done in pro series. We are stuck with our stock tranmissions. For your assumption that torque does not matter would require the cars less torque to have a reasonably good gear box. This is simply not the case in the majority of the shit boxes in IT. Especially in the lower ranks of unsporty cars in the ITA,B, and C range.

[quadzjr]

Show your math.

I'll see if I can find Josh's paper, but the calculation is how much time is spent in what area of the curve. For most reasonable five speed gear boxes, this seems to be a wash.

It's why an ITS Mazda RX7 with 180 whp and 130 wtq competes just fine with Z cars and my car with a lot more torque.

What math would you like to see? I love doing math, I actually miss doing it at my current career :(

area under the curve is number uno. however I believe that is beyond the scope of the process, atleast currently.

There are alot of other factors in why one car is competitive v.s. another. Aero, suspension, CG, roll centers, brakes, etc.. all play a role in how the car will perform on track.

A better example is line the two cars in a drag race. See which car will win.

If you have two identical cars sans a difference in torque, the one with more torque will win. Comparing two completely different cars and making that for the basis of why torque does not play a role eliminates the affect of all the other factors.

Also not all 5 gear gear boxes are the same. I do understand that for the sake of the class some assumption would have to be made and in that case I agree.

My power band is roughly 1200-1500rpm. I can assure you that my gearbox does not work with that. However my motors output fails when it comes to area under the curve.

[chuck baader]

I do have some first hand experience from the ARRC in November last year. My car (so called torque monster), Brian Price's Miata, and the Mosher CRXs were identical down the back straight at Road Atlanta. The only way one would pull the other boiled down to whomever got on the gas sooner. By my calculations, all three cars were 1/2 a percentage point in hp/wt calcs, and ran that way on the track. Each car has its strong and weak points but for all intents and purposes extremely equal, torque be dammed. Chuck

[JeffYoung]

This:




If you have two identical cars sans a difference in torque, the one with more torque will win.

is true in a hyper technical sense, but wrong practically.

A better way to say it is the car that USES its torque the best will win.

Even with identical gearboxes and rear ends, if the low torque car is able to launch at higher rpm and get into and stay in the HP band quicker then it will be a wash, or a win for the low torque car.

It took me a while to get over the misconception that huge torque is a huge advantage. It is, some. It basically allows you to recover better when you fall out of your peak RPM band.

But that is about it assuming areas under the curve of the high revving/low tq car versus the low revving/high tq. car are the same.

[JoshS]

Actually, I didn't say torque didn't matter. Torque does matter, because it directly affects the shape of the hp curve, and that *does* matter.

What I said was that the PEAK torque doesn't matter, which is all we have. You simply can't derive anything meaningful and useful about the shape of the horsepower curve based on the two things we have available, which is peak tq @ revs and peak hp @ revs. In fact, you can draw exactly one conclusion about the HP curve: you can find a second point on it (the HP available at the torque peak) and you can plot a two-point HP curve, otherwise known as an "HP line". The slope of that line is an indication of how quickly HP falls off on the left side of the HP peak. But you know nothing about how quickly HP falls off on the right side of the HP peak.

I plotted these "HP lines" for lots of cars in the ITCS and found very little correlation between their slopes and what cars the world thinks of as "torquey". I concluded that the peak torque number can not be used to derive any meaningful conclusions about appropriate weights.

I have the paper on my computer at home, I can repost it this weekend.

[JeffYoung]

That is correct, and since we were only looking at peak torque in the Process, that's why I shorthanded that "torque shouldn't matter" (for the Process).

No worries. It's in the Process and we do not intend to change it.


Actually, I didn't say torque didn't matter. Torque does matter, because it directly affects the shape of the hp curve, and that *does* matter.

What I said was that the PEAK torque doesn't matter, which is all we have. You simply can't derive anything meaningful and useful about the shape of the horsepower curve based on the two things we have available, which is peak tq @ revs and peak hp @ revs. In fact, you can draw exactly one conclusion about the HP curve: you can find a second point on it (the HP available at the torque peak) and you can plot a two-point HP curve, otherwise known as an "HP line". The slope of that line is an indication of how quickly HP falls off on the left side of the HP peak. But you know nothing about how quickly HP falls off on the right side of the HP peak.

I plotted these "HP lines" for lots of cars in the ITCS and found very little correlation between their slopes and what cars the world thinks of as "torquey". I concluded that the peak torque number can not be used to derive any meaningful conclusions about appropriate weights.

I have the paper on my computer at home, I can repost it this weekend.

[lateapex911]

per the ops manual all classes recieve the following adders:
DW: +50, except ITR
mid engined: +50
abnortmally small or large brakes: ±50

and these are class specific:
FWD Torque/diplacement low/high
ITR 6% -100/+150
ITS 5.5% -50/+100
ITA 2% -50/+100
ITB 2% 0/+50
ITC 0% 0/+50

ITR FWD and strut, -50
ITR rear solid axle, -50

.

See above.

Ops manual is great, but it just has a typo. Simple as that. I think it should be fixed as a error. (Really, it's just a manual and you can do as you please with it, because, unless I'm mistaken, it's not in the GCR and needs no official approval.)
Regardless, a simple oversight.

Down the road, if you really think it's wrong, then correct it, along with all the cars affected by it. (A bunch will gain weight)

I'd like to see the count/spreadsheet of the actual cars changed, how many are DW, and how many are not.
There's already an allowance in there for the strut so it's a double whammy to add for DW.

[ShelbyRacer]

There are some conspiracy theorists that Chevy intentionally screwed the heads and kep the intake crappy so that the revision with TPI would look that much better. Not sure how much I buy into it but the heads are CLEARLY blocked.

My information points to emissions as the impetus. Given the inherent issues of a wet manifold design, I'd think the keeping port velocities up and inducing some swirl and tumble would be an attempt to address that.

[JeffYoung]

I found a long article from a GM engineer the other day that said just about this.

Supposedly the prototype L83 made about 300 crank hp. However, it had serious driveability and emissions issues.

The correction was the port blockage to increase velocity, and fuel and timing adjustments of let's say a "non-performance" nature.

The fuel and timing can be corrected of course.

The real issue is those ports. It still looks to me that the IT legal port job will remove most of that material, but I may see if I can get one of these manifolds off of eBay.

This car is possibly an overdog, if it responds to IT prep like other large displacement motors, 2 valve, emissions era motors. 25% for now was the right call without any other data, but it concerns me.

[Ron Earp]

A few on Ebay now. I've never seen inside one until the Ebay pictures, pretty interesting design.

[JeffYoung]

Funny, I was just looking too.

$800 though!


One on Ebay now.

[Ron Earp]

Funny, I was just looking too.

$800 though!

I bid $35 on one that is buy it now at $100. Not complete but has the stuff that is important. I think I know a fellow that has one too sitting out back of the garage. Dude that works for R&J, I know I saw one down there at Xmas. Most people don't want them, tis the reason I've got six Ford V6 manifolds around the house, not counting the ones on the cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Doubtful (to me). The committee discussed this on the last call. The rationale for not having it doesn't make sense. Couple that with not wanting to change the Ops Manual except in extraordinary circumstances and my guess is it stays.

Agree or disagree with the rule, we have shown you that it was mistakenly omitted with 3 levels of proof. I think it is your responsibility to correct the Document and then make changes as you see fit later on a categorical level. Not allow the mistake to stay because it satisfies your current position.

No offense here but your stance does not make sense to me. A mistake was made. Correct it. Then it affects one car. If you allow it to remain, it affects way more.

The extraordinary circumstance is that it is WRONG. An error was made in it's omission. If you left out the FWD subtractor by accident, would you be willing to let that sit? Of course not. Come on, fix the mistake.

[JeffYoung]

Andy. Stop. You are not on the ITAC anymore (and I won't be for much longer and then I get to sit on the sidelines, although I am looking forward to that). I understand your position. I disagree with it. As I have said 50 times now the origin of the mistake was in thinking that DW cars predominated in ITR. We have proven that your assumption on that point was completely incorrect. Thus the DW adder actually makes sense.

In other words, the mistake actually produced a more consistent, supportable result than what the "mistake" replaced.

My responsibility is to do what I think is best for IT as a whole, based on my own opinions and member input. Right now, I've got exactly ONE persion -- YOU -- making a stink about this and no one else.

You really need to relax on this one my friend.


Agree or disagree with the rule, we have shown you that it was mistakenly omitted with 3 levels of proof. I think it is your responsibility to correct the Document and then make changes as you see fit later on a categorical level. Not allow the mistake to stay because it satisfies your current position.

No offense here but your stance does not make sense to me. A mistake was made. Correct it. Then it affects one car. If you allow it to remain, it affects way more.

The extraordinary circumstance is that it is WRONG. An error was made in it's omission. If you left out the FWD subtractor by accident, would you be willing to let that sit? Of course not. Come on, fix the mistake.

[lateapex911]

As I have said 50 times now the origin of the mistake was in thinking that DW cars predominated in ITR. We have proven that your assumption on that point was completely incorrect. .

I must be skimming this thread badly. Can you show me that post Jeff?? Thanks.

[Chip42]

Agree or disagree with the rule, we have shown you that it was mistakenly omitted with 3 levels of proof. I think it is your responsibility to correct the Document and then make changes as you see fit later on a categorical level. Not allow the mistake to stay because it satisfies your current position.

No offense here but your stance does not make sense to me. A mistake was made. Correct it. Then it affects one car. If you allow it to remain, it affects way more.

The extraordinary circumstance is that it is WRONG. An error was made in it's omission. If you left out the FWD subtractor by accident, would you be willing to let that sit? Of course not. Come on, fix the mistake.

1 - NOTHING is getting changed without a complete review of the CLASS. if <2% of the car's weight in an adder that was not applied to its siblings bothers you that much, I'm sorry. I can't imagine how you would have reacted if we chose to class the car at 30%, 115# heavier, which would have been consistant with the way similar cars were run previously (the 2V OHV fords and camarobirds).

2 - the ERROR is a difference between what is written in the ops manual and what was done in the past BEFORE the ops manual was released. we tend to think the manual actually represents a better system. remind me where you said otherwise BEFORE this issue (I'm sure you did though I don't remember it). no one is arguing about the way it was done before, only discussing if that way was, indeed, objectively correct. There's good evidence that it wasn't, and not just with regard to the suspension adders.

we WILL address the situation, we ARE reviewing ALL of the current ITR cars, with a variety of "processes" including the ops manual, the method you reminded us of, and hybrids with various adders turned on and off. we will evaluate each result and DECIDE THEN what the correct course of action is and vote on it. I'm not going to vote to change the corvette before it even hits fastrack to maybe do it again in a couple of months. if it is changed at all, it will happen once.

I'm thinking that this 50# wont upset the corvette all that much in the grand scheme of things.

and while I'm on the point - there is no double whammy here. the 50lbs is just that. no non-DW car got -50 for it UNLESS it was FWD, in which case that is OFFSET by the fact that a -100# deduct was used vs. the poblished -6%, which is more than 100# in all cases I've run so far. it's also a fair deduct in theory, because most FWD strut cars have crap packaging and generally abuses the tires more, particularly at these higher HP and weight classifications. so everyone can just lay off the double whammy argument, it doesn't hold up.

[Andy Bettencourt]

1 - NOTHING is getting changed without a complete review of the CLASS. if <2% of the car's weight in an adder that was not applied to its siblings bothers you that much, I'm sorry. I can't imagine how you would have reacted if we chose to class the car at 30%, 115# heavier, which would have been consistant with the way similar cars were run previously (the 2V OHV fords and camarobirds).

Simple, I would not have recommended to this guy he build a Vette. And I was confident it was going through at 25% based on the new 'standard of evidence' you were using to correct cars like the 300ZX.




and while I'm on the point - there is no double whammy here. the 50lbs is just that. no non-DW car got -50 for it UNLESS it was FWD, in which case that is OFFSET by the fact that a -100# deduct was used vs. the poblished -6%, which is more than 100# in all cases I've run so far. it's also a fair deduct in theory, because most FWD strut cars have crap packaging and generally abuses the tires more, particularly at these higher HP and weight classifications. so everyone can just lay off the double whammy argument, it doesn't hold up.Of course it does. If you re-run the cars, you will apply the -50 AND the 6% AND the +50. No?

Whatever, I am done. I am just totally pissed off that it is not being recognized that ITR never used DW adders and due to effectively a transcription error, you are classing cars inconsistent to the rest of the class. Everything else is just smoke.

[Chip42]

ever heard of a happy accident? I think that's what we have here.

-50 to FWD only and AFTER the FWD deduct. not apples:apples. btw this effects all of 4 cars in the ITCS, only one of which I'm aware of actually being run in ITR, and it's overweight anyhow (DUC's 2ZZ-GE celica). I hope your corvette can keep up with it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

ever heard of a happy accident? I think that's what we have here.

-50 to FWD only and AFTER the FWD deduct. not apples:apples. btw this effects all of 4 cars in the ITCS, only one of which I'm aware of actually being run in ITR, and it's overweight anyhow (DUC's 2ZZ-GE celica). I hope your corvette can keep up with it.

I again don't care if you add 50 for DW or subtract 50 for struts, but not both.

[JeffYoung]

No, it isn't just smoke. The reason for that no DW adder was used in ITR before is wrong. It makes no sense. Like Chip said, it is a "happy accident" that the Ops Manual got it RIGHT and has a DW adder for ITR.


Whatever, I am done. I am just totally pissed off that it is not being recognized that ITR never used DW adders and due to effectively a transcription error, you are classing cars inconsistent to the rest of the class. Everything else is just smoke.

[Andy Bettencourt]

No, it isn't just smoke. The reason for that no DW adder was used in ITR before is wrong. It makes no sense. Like Chip said, it is a "happy accident" that the Ops Manual got it RIGHT and has a DW adder for ITR.

That's 100% your opinion because you happen to like the way the rule reads. There was never an intent to add for DW's in ITR. Like the logic or not, it doesn't matter. Again, with a strut 'deduct' on the books, it can't be both ways. (well it can, but that was NEVER the intent nor was ever voted on). Eliminate the strut deduct and keep the DW, or eliminate the DW and keep the strut deduct.

[Knestis]

Sorry, Jeff. I agree with Andy - strongly. Or at least as strongly as I can muster an opinion about the issues at this point in my self-imposed laissez faire bubble.

The ITR-specific application of the Process, as established and practiced at the time, was not translated accurately into the ops manual. That's a clerical error that should be fixed.

It's a "happy accident" only insofar as someone wants the result to be a Process-as-applied taht is consistent with something slightly different than it was intended at the time. And to be clear, I don't think that anyone said, "All ITR cars have dual-wishbone suspension." Again, my recollection was that we came to consensus around the first principle that as a group, cars in ITR hard consistently more sophisticated suspension designs than in the lower-end classes - save the stick-axle options, for which a subtractor solution was available.

There are two arguments for not correcting what has clearly been documented as a documentation error - the aforementioned desire to end up with a different outcome (the current ops manual-defined happy accident) or "we don't want the CRB to be pissed off." Please don't (ITAC as a whole) get sucked into playing the games around the second. Oops. We goofed. It's a fix, not a change.

At that point, LEAVE IT ALONE. There's nothing new to be learned on the issues that matter and changing things is going to do more harm than good.

K

[JeffYoung]

Wrong.

The reason offered above on many occasions for "no DW adder" in ITR was most cars had DW. That's false. BMWs, Ponies, some Toyotas, some Nissans, and I am sure some others don't.

Then it morphed to 'advanced suspension design" in ITR, as if we were going to start looking at suspension geometry and camber curves on strut suspensions AND then try to figure out if it could be corrected with the "open strut" rule. Answer: we are not, the advanced suspension design argument is a red herring.

If we are going to have a DW adder it makes no sense to have it in 3 classes and not one.

I have no idea why you are so upset about this, which involves 50 lbs on cars with 200+ whp.

[seckerich]

Most of the cars in ITR are already too heavy because the class was built around the E36 BMW. Now you want to go with another adder and further push the weight envelope up? Tires, brakes, etc cost more and wear out faster running up the cost to play. Stop with the adders and start doing a deduct if needed. Damn you guys get closer to the reason I left prod years ago with a new set of "I can fix it" every few years.

[Knestis]

I'm a long way from upset and I utterly DO NOT care about 50 pounds on a couple of cars.

I care about fidelity of the process and making the system work (i.e., where a board doesn't implicitly pressure an ad hoc to do - or not do - something because it's going to "look bad").

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm a long way from upset and I utterly DO NOT care about 50 pounds on a couple of cars.

I care about fidelity of the process and making the system work (i.e., where a board doesn't implicitly pressure an ad hoc to do - or not do - something because it's going to "look bad").

K
Troof.

[lateapex911]

I'm a long way from upset and I utterly DO NOT care about 50 pounds on a couple of cars.

I care about fidelity of the process and making the system work (i.e., where a board doesn't implicitly pressure an ad hoc to do - or not do - something because it's going to "look bad").

K

I agree. Anytime the phrase "It's not like XX pounds is going to make the difference", I cringe a bit, as I fear the point is being missed.


Two points though. One, nobody on the ITAC has said "The CRB is saying 'do this' or 'Don't do that'", if I read correctly. My take is that the ITAC fears they will, or, perhaps, they wish not to 'go there'.

Second, an observance....You (Kirk), myself, and Andy are ' dig our heels in' types when it comes to points of fidelity of procedures and processes, and...surprise...we're the ones that either left on principal or were kinda pushed to leave on the same principal. ;)

[lateapex911]

Wrong.

The reason offered above on many occasions for "no DW adder" in ITR was most cars had DW. That's false. BMWs, Ponies, some Toyotas, some Nissans, and I am sure some others don't.

....

If we are going to have a DW adder it makes no sense to have it in 3 classes and not one.

I have no idea why you are so upset about this, which involves 50 lbs on cars with 200+ whp.

First, I'd like to thank Jeff, and Chip for hanging out and shooting the shit on this. Much appreciated. I remember being on the ITAC, and having different opinions about issues than other ITAC guys, and thats fine, it was always eye opening. So, I hope my comments are taken with the respect I intend them to have.

On the suspension type, I'd still like to see the breakdown. Further the cars you (sans the Ponies which get the stick subtractor) mention are all RWD, and have sophisticated suspension at the drive end. (Unless you are talking about the Celica thing, which I'm not well versed in right now), but Supras do have a multi link rear end, IIRC.

I see it the situation as:
The ITR class was always considered, from the outset, to have more sophisticated suspensions as the 'norm', and deviations from that, such as live rear axles, (This subtractor came later after much whining on my part, and to your point Jeff about having things in one class yet not in another not making sense, here's one, it doesn't apply to the lower classes, right?) and strut fronts on cars with FWD got weight breaks. We discussed it committee (check the notes) and it was decided that we were concerned with drive end geometries, and thats why we did as we did.

So... The ops manual, as Josh points out, has a typo.
Fix that. It's just a typo. Easy fix.

And, from a proper procedure standpoint, the cars classed differently (the Vette, evidently) should be adjusted to match the previous method.
(And saying it doesn't matter because it's just 50lbs, or that it's going to spank the pony cars, is missing the core issue, and is not a reason not to set it to the proper weight, in my opinion.)

Doing otherwise, is putting the cart before the horse.

Now, if you then decide that the judgement of the previous ITAC was wrong, either in it's count of cars to determine the "norm", or in it's application of the granularity of adders and subractors, then go ahead, research and make changes. (changing, say 12 cars is no different than changing 13 cars)

But, if thats the plan, I suggest that careful thought is given as to the weight issue. (Instead of adding to certain cars, don't add to those same cars, but give all others the equivalent break? If I follow your ideas, this shouldn't affect the E36, which was set as low as it could go, IIRC)

[Z3_GoCar]

There are some solid axle rear suspensions that are more sophisticated than the semi-trailing arm suspension on the back of the Z3's. So, no I wouldn't say that all BMW's have sophisticated rear suspensions. How do they handle the e-30 vis-a-vis the e-36 in ITS?

[Knestis]

There are some solid axle rear suspensions that are more sophisticated than the semi-trailing arm suspension on the back of the Z3's. So, no I wouldn't say that all BMW's have sophisticated rear suspensions. How do they handle the e-30 vis-a-vis the e-36 in ITS?

Argh.

They DON'T "handle the difference" to that degree of granularity. The whole point of the Process exercise - its first principle - was to make the specification (weight-setting) of IT cars as transparent and repeatable as possible, accepting that it was impossible to accommodate all of the different little design differences among the cars listed.

And THAT moves from the even more basic understanding that the influence of those myriad factors are noise lost in the influence of the big factors that account for the greatest percentage of "competitiveness" on the track - budget (time and money) and driver skill. The rules can't control those factors.

Kirk (who's increasingly worried that when Jeff goes, we'll be officially headed into another ITAC dark age)

[Chip42]

Look, Jake/Andy / Kirk (And Steve)

the objective is not to change anything. that's not the same as the objecting being to not change anything.

we followed the book. the book didn't match the old classes. we noted that difference and in trying to figure out what was going on, found many more discrepancies between the book and the old process. (thanks for your help sorting that out) we will evaluate the cars past, current, and some potential future (throw some at me!) and see what makes the most sense with the least impact to the ops manual and existing classifications, is amenable to the future, and supported by facts about the cars, not about history.

this is a case where there is no one right answer, and there is no perfect solution. we just want the best we can manage, and think the membership deserves as much, and to know why whatever we recommend is recommended, even if that's to re-run the newer listings and leave the rest as is.

if that's the dark ages, fine with me.

[Knestis]

I have ZERO problem with applying the Process consistently to all cars. That was the idea, and the only thing that prevented the ITAC c.2009 from doing so was the CRB.

But it's been established that the manual does not reflect the Process-as-designed in this one minor instance. FIX IT - then do everything you think you can do. You'll have nothing but support from this corner.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

we followed the book. the book didn't match the old classes. we noted that

Chip,

What we are saying is that you followed the book, and the book was in error. If you went to class a car today and noticed that the FWD deduction was missing, would you just say screw it, and recommend that number - or would you correct the ops manual?

This is the same thing. The manual was missing some info. Agree with that info or not, the proof that it should have been is clear. I see no reason why in the short term the ITAC wouldn't get it fixed.

[seckerich]

Look, Jake/Andy / Kirk (And Steve)

the objective is not to change anything. that's not the same as the objecting being to not change anything.

we followed the book. the book didn't match the old classes. we noted that difference and in trying to figure out what was going on, found many more discrepancies between the book and the old process. (thanks for your help sorting that out) we will evaluate the cars past, current, and some potential future (throw some at me!) and see what makes the most sense with the least impact to the ops manual and existing classifications, is amenable to the future, and supported by facts about the cars, not about history.

this is a case where there is no one right answer, and there is no perfect solution. we just want the best we can manage, and think the membership deserves as much, and to know why whatever we recommend is recommended, even if that's to re-run the newer listings and leave the rest as is.

if that's the dark ages, fine with me.


Fair enough Chip. Lets review a few things to give basis to some of our frustration. ITR was started under many of the current and a few past ITAC members posting on this forum. This was to be a new class, and a new day in classing transparency with real record keeping and a process that was fair to everyone as best we could given the granularity of IT racing.

Now I sit and see posts from many involved in this creation that can not agree on the math or the process used to class these cars. Multiple pages of "I think I have it in a spreadsheet somewhere" or "I seem to remember", etc. You fill in the excuses but in all due respect this is sad that we are back here again in such a short time. Spin it how you like but either record keeping sucks or data was not passed on to current ITAC. Either way you need to get your ducks in a row before you screw with any more cars weight. :023:

[Knestis]

We busted our butts to maintain records of all of the specs recommended to the CRB. The documentation is there.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

In defense of the current ITAC, even though the sheet shows the calculations from start to finish, the disconnect is in that it was done before certain tweaks hit the Ops Manual - like the change from a straight 100lb deduct to a 6% deduct for FWD as well as the application (or not application) of the stick axle deduct.

So the classifications are documented and the adders are all in there, they just don't line up with any numbers that may be run today, notwithstanding the error in omission for the DW rules in ITR.

[Chip42]

you need to get your ducks in a row before you screw with any more cars weight. :023:

dude, I consider you a friend so please keep that in mind when I say this: this whole thing stems from 2 new classifications, of which only one seems to pique anyones interest. that 1 car (84 vette) has 50 lbs "too many," the other (1st gen TSX) is 22 lbs "too light" (6% deduct and DW adder). characterizing that as "screwing with cars' weights" is a bit dramatic. believe me, you'll all know what we decide to do from here BEFORE the CRB. k? k.

and no offense to any of you, but with all the time I spend on this forum and in this thread in particular, if I didn't have the timeline of the process and previous ITAC at least understood by now, which I do, you'd be wise to ignore every word I say because I'd have to be as dense as tungsten.

we didn't research the "old" process in classing the new cars because we followed the book. until this week, I didn't know it was "wrong", my focus has been on the lower classes. a lot of legacy data is available. we don't have every comment voiced on a con call but we have the decisions and the posts in the fora ("forums") as there are 2, current and old. and can refer to it as needed.

[Chip42]

In defense of the current ITAC, even though the sheet shows the calculations from start to finish, the disconnect is in that it was done before certain tweaks hit the Ops Manual - like the change from a straight 100lb deduct to a 6% deduct for FWD as well as the application (or not application) of the stick axle deduct.

So the classifications are documented and the adders are all in there, they just don't line up with any numbers that may be run today, notwithstanding the error in omission for the DW rules in ITR.

thanks andy - FWIW "the sheet" I have only shows 6 ITR cars: '03 Z4, 2 eras of fox body stang, 3rd gen camarobird, and 2.2L S2000. I have to hunt for the rest unless someone has the data already tabulated.

[seckerich]

When I hear going back through as Jeff mentioned and adding double wishbone adders to all ITR cars that is more than 2 cars. I am your friend and will always shoot straight regardless. Just keep stability in mind as you go forward.

[Chip42]

We had a call last night, and nothing groundbreaking came from it. we have begun to address our backlog and the decisions we've been telling you all about that haven't shown up in fastrack for the past 3 or so months should start flowing soon.

Jeff has taken pains to get the 84 Corvette classiifcation at the head of the line, and even to recieve special attention by the CRB in order to get a classification published before May 1.

some VW adjustemnts were made where data was incorrect in the spec lines, re-ran the 16v Jetta GLI and Scirocco II in A, and the JH motored Mk1 GTI and Scirocco II in B. recommended that all 4 lose some weight as a result.

approved wording on a new rule and a slight shuffle to the ITCS to accumulate the generic electrical rules into their own section, rather than have them sctattered in the way they are now. the hard work has not yet been done there. the new rule may not be very popular with some of you, we'll wait to see how it comes through the CRB to discuss. overall it's a minor change.

thanks to everyone for their patience in recent months while we deal with some internal issues. despite outward appearances, this committee does function well and works pretty efficiently.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Many thanks to you and Jeff.

[CRallo]

Many thanks to you and Jeff.

+1

[JeffYoung]

Chip, good post. I think that sums up the call nicely. Really proud of this group, and really happy with the CRB interface. Things are working very well right now on the committee.

[Chip42]

Update.

we missed the call in May due to scheduling issues around memorial day so last night was our first con call since april. we did conduct a fair amount of business on the forum in the interum.

last night we covered a large number of outstanding issues that simply need to be sent up to the CRB. we've gotten ourselves straitened out and this oversight is largely my fault. expect the next fastrack or 2 (depending on CRB's workload) to have a good number of IT letters - at least 3 new cars (mostly hondas), some member input, and a few adjustments/corrections to speclines.

new recomendations made last night address some long-standing "issues" in the ITCS. we don't have CRB approval of them yet, so I'll wait for the fastrack to start commentary, but I think most everyone will be pleased with the results if they go through.

The CRB has been really forthcoming and helpful as of late as we work through some contentious issues. we don't always agree, but we deal with those disagreements very professionally and I'm really glad to report that the committe/CRB relationship is very good right now.

more as things develop.

[Chip42]

Wow - have I really slacked on this update for a year???

well, I hope everyone is doing well in 2013. we've been a bit backed up this summer. reading the above, it appears this is a trend. right now we have 6 new speclines for CRB review in ITB, S, and R. No crazy/controversial rules requests or clarifications in a while though we have had some cars that we couldn't classify and some requests to reclassify that we couldn't do much with.

Generally it's been pretty smooth running of late. we are in the midst of a general review of ITB. on paper it's a straightforward task of getting all of the cars "processed" to the same standard. the issue is the age of many of the cars classified in B and the general lack of information on so many of them. we hope to have this complete in time for CRB review and membership review by the end of summer. we appreciate peoples understanding during this time as we are not adjusting existing classifications outside of the group. new entries are only cut and dry ones. We are NOT looking to change the rules or adjust the class balance, only to make sure all cars are correctly run through the process as published.

[lateapex911]

Wow, thanks for the yearly....to the day...update!
ITB is tricky. It's been a long time coming. That spreadsheet Kirk did dates back now...time flies!

[shwah]

Honestly too little to late on ITB at this point if you race a VW.
While I get that the goal has always been to do the right thing for the class, the reality is that the right thing was done with the Golf 3, and then we went off the rails making "process" weight reductions on cars without sufficient evidence, or sufficient time since the previous reductions to understand the implications.
The cars that were the bogey/target for the original process may be competitive locally, but no longer have a legitimate shot at the ARRC, and a whole lot are making the move the level 2 prod.

On the other side of that coin, it will probably be cool for many that different marques are positioned to win, and will be fun to watch the development path of those cars.

[Chip42]

Wow, thanks for the yearly....to the day...update!
ITB is tricky. It's been a long time coming. That spreadsheet Kirk did dates back now...time flies!

hey, I was a day early for an annual update. :p


Honestly too little to late on ITB at this point if you race a VW.

the A2 is "right" by process within a pretty reasonable error.

what sucks is that a lot of "correct" cars are getting beaten by a number of other "correct" cars. many cars have never been run through the process, and mostly those are getting beaten, too. the A2 used to be a very strong car in ITB. now it's just a strong car. others are in a worse position, some better off. There are enough A2s out there that perceived issues with that car can be damaging to the class, but it's not classed wrong as far as I can tell.

You've been vocal about this for a long time, and I want you to know it's been taken seriously. There's only so much we can do within the rules and process, and we feel that a static process and mostly unchanging rules are "the rock" of IT. to that end, we have found that there are a lot of problems with trying to piecemeal "fix" a class that has so much out of whack. we know what the process says to do, we are trying to make sure everything in the list is set "correctly" to that standard. if performance outliers that "match" our power/weight expectations arise AFTER everyone is on the same playing field, then maybe we can find a way to better balance the class, but first we need to get the house in order.

[shwah]

Sorry Chip - it's only "right" if you use a power function that is not accurate for the car. You know how that fight goes, but in this case no one will share the source of the 30% number, or listen to 10/10ths builds that don't get it.

The fact that every hp in error equals 17# of weight is the challenge you guys face. My experience with the A2 was that it was competitive despite a power to weight disadvantage. With that disadvantage increased - there is no way it wins over equally prepped and driven lb/hp leaders.

I know I was vocal. That's because it meant a lot to me, and to a lot of the ITB drivers. That is the way the system is designed. Unfortunately I probably should have taken a different route and joined the ITAC. In the end I hope the new ITB prospers, and won't dwell on it. The "new" national/regional/majors racing format stuff is likely a bigger issue for all of IT than any of the individual class minutia.

[lateapex911]

The "new" national/regional/majors racing format stuff is likely a bigger issue for all of IT than any of the individual class minutia.


Yea, remember way back when and we were discussing whether IT should be National or not? ANd some thought it could help the club, and that regional IT would be fine after the big guns went national, while others said it would ruin IT?

it's not exactly the same, but we will see how a version of that plays out.

[gran racing]

and we feel that a static process and mostly unchanging rules are "the rock" of IT.

I've often felt like at least some members of the CRB really hurt ITB and other IT classes. I thought multiple rounds of ITAC members have done a great job but somehow back room politics got in the way. Or at least that is the perception that I and many others had.

I will admit the whole multi-valve and Accord debacle still leaves a sour taste in my mouth even though I sold the Prelude and am in ITA. Still appreciate the efforts of the current and past ITACs.

[JeffYoung]

I've often felt like at least some members of the CRB really hurt ITB and other IT classes. I thought multiple rounds of ITAC members have done a great job but somehow back room politics got in the way. Or at least that is the perception that I and many others had.

I will admit the whole multi-valve and Accord debacle still leaves a sour taste in my mouth even though I sold the Prelude and am in ITA. Still appreciate the efforts of the current and past ITACs.

Reasonable reaction to that situation in my view.

HOwever, I'd say this. The vast majority of classifications get done objectively using the process with no fuss. Those are the ones you guys don't "see" - not that you should. The Process WORKS.

We go through classifications so much faster now than we did 4 years ago it isn't even funny. Bing, bang, boom, done. Why? We have an organized Process for doing so.

The problem cars -- and there have only be a few, the RX8, the Miata, the Accord, the Audi, the MR2 -- are the ones that seem to get all the attention, while 100 others go through and get classed and race with no issue.

[shwah]

Yea, remember way back when and we were discussing whether IT should be National or not? ANd some thought it could help the club, and that regional IT would be fine after the big guns went national, while others said it would ruin IT?

it's not exactly the same, but we will see how a version of that plays out.

Yeah that was quite a discussion. I believe that IT would be in a better place for this current changing landscape if it were the popular national class that it would have quickly become had that transition taken place.

[JeffYoung]

That's very clear now. I wish it had been clearer back "then".

[Knestis]

It was pretty clear to me. :shrug:

I'm not proud of the fact that I was right but to be fair, it wasn't until LP Prod got its rudder pointed in the right direction and STL came along that it became truly apparent what they would do to IT participation.

It would be interesting to go back to some of those discussions now and see how many of those people who hollered that "going National will KILL Improved Touring" are still even racing in the category.

Oh, well.

And there is exactly NO lack of clarity in my mind about the individuals on the CRB who were to blame for ITB being plugged up, process-wise, for so long. And the system went more generally pear-shaped only on the heels of those ITB-specific personal objections. It was an embarrassing period for the Club in my view - or would have been if the membership were paying attention and knew what was going on.

K

EDIT - Grab a beer or six. www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23946

[JeffYoung]

Interesting thread.

In looking back at it, it sure seemed like a lot of the IT guys opposed to National status would have changed their minds if we had gotten rid of national/regional distinctions and just sent the top 24 to the Boreoffs.

We got part of that (no more distinction) and didn't get the other (IT as one of the 24 going to the Boreoffs).

[Gregg]

It would be interesting to go back to some of those discussions now and see how many of those people who hollered that "going National will KILL Improved Touring" are still even racing in the category.
Yes it would, but it would also be interesting to see how many drivers have left the category and run exclusively in LP prod or STL at Nationals / Majors.

I can name a few east of the Mississippi (and sometimes the circumstances, such as a destroyed IT car, influenced the decision), but I'd be surprised if the nationwide total was any more than just a blip on the radar.

[gran racing]

I'm with ya Gregg. I still think that not going National was the right thing for IT. Higher perceived status would have brought even more bucks into the category. Still amazes me when I hear about a $50,000 Spec Miata build and am not surprised. There's also a reason why SM2 and SSM in some parts of the country (WDR for one) have become more popular.

IT is still strong. Racing overall took a hit, not just IT.

[dickita15]

That proposal to make IT national classes and send the top 24 top classes in participation to the runoffs was part of a proposal from the national racing task force maybe 8 years ago. They laid out a plan with 25 or so points. Only one item from the proposal was adopted. I will buy a beer if anyone knows what that was.
The resistance to change is strong in the SCCA. In the last three years or so we have seen some progress on that front. There is much still to do but I am hopeful.
SCCA is the best amateur motorsports organization in the country and it is about time we started acting like it.

[Knestis]

Yes it would, but it would also be interesting to see how many drivers have left the category and run exclusively in LP prod or STL at Nationals / Majors.

I can name a few east of the Mississippi (and sometimes the circumstances, such as a destroyed IT car, influenced the decision), but I'd be surprised if the nationwide total was any more than just a blip on the radar.

Indeed.

Some people who had strong opinions didn't stick around anyway - massive turnover is a large part of the reason I don't put a lot of stock in the "what I want" lobbying that drives our decisions.

Some of us - yes, us, me included - decided to not come back to IT when it became necessary to make a decision. National status was only part of my immediate decision but it was a factor. More influential is my understanding that STL and LP prod are still relatively weak but the will grow. IT won't at this point because OTHER people are being influenced by IT being relegated to Regional-only forever, among other factors of course.

If I'm going to spend bucks to build a new car (and I had no interest in rebuilding around a chassis approaching vintage eligibility within its anticipated lifespan) I'm going to do it in a category with more of a future.

It compounds. And one blip on the radar can be the first of a whole squadron.

K

[Chip42]

They laid out a plan with 25 or so points. Only one item from the proposal was adopted. I will buy a beer if anyone knows what that was.

participation floor for runoffs eligibility?

I don't think there's any anti IT sentiment rampant in the CRB or higher, though I do think that IT is liked better when it's quiet then when there's a controversy. there are at least 2 BoD that race IT, and a few ex IT guys in the CRB - the category is not scoffed at. It's pretty obvious that STL was largely a way to give it cars a path to the ruboffs. Not just the "IT cars may compete" clause, but the evolutionary path solves what many saw as a problem of regional status. LP prod was always sold as a way to "move up" from IT too, though the intention was to save prod (worked) the "draw from that bunch of farm league guys (IT)" mentality is not unique to our club.

it's important to the "path" established by those classes that IT STAY as a "the minors." Gotta have good minor leagues to make this work. so the PTB is most likely NOT wishing to see IT going anywhere. that's a good thing, IMHO.

what does the future of IT look like? I can't say farther than a few months down the line, but I certainly don't want to change anything from the core of the rules. that's up to the people who choose to stay there more than those who choose to leave. there is an interesting contrast between the goals of "farm league" and "category worth winning in its own right." only key I know to success is that the participation has to be bottom heavy in order to make it attractive to join and to have a population to pull from. assuming IT is "the bottom," SCCA risks loosing that.

[lateapex911]

That proposal to make IT national classes and send the top 24 top classes in participation to the runoffs was part of a proposal from the national racing task force maybe 8 years ago. They laid out a plan with 25 or so points. Only one item from the proposal was adopted. I will buy a beer if anyone knows what that was.
The resistance to change is strong in the SCCA. In the last three years or so we have seen some progress on that front. There is much still to do but I am hopeful.
SCCA is the best amateur motorsports organization in the country and it is about time we started acting like it.

So, shall we alert your local liquor store?? Cuz you didn't say you'd buy the person who guessed right a beer....

As a guy who was in the trenches, I can certainly attest to the resistance of change. maddening.

[lateapex911]

participation floor for runoffs eligibility?

. It's pretty obvious that STL was largely a way to give IT cars a path to the ruboffs. Not just the "IT cars may compete" clause, but the evolutionary path solves what many saw as a problem of regional status. LP prod was always sold as a way to "move up" from IT too, though the intention was to save prod (worked) the "draw from that bunch of farm league guys (IT)" mentality is not unique to our club.


Well, I think that STL was created so that CERTAIN TYPES of "IT like" cars (A very narrow window, actually) could see the "big time", but the category (class actually) is managed completely differently, and due to the weight setting method, will always be a class for a couple elite hp to specific output machines.

Its not IT. It's ONE class, not 5.
It is having it's numbers propped up by double dipping SMs.
IF the top 24* had been the path chosen and IT was eligible, the numbers would have had a couple of IT classes qualify, and not due to SM numbers.

And, STL going to be pretty pricy to build a top dog. Engine allowances are pretty open, so that means you will likely pay. Yes, certain swaps can be cheap, but others not so much. Brakes, the restrictions might keep uber expensive parts at bay, but it's an allowance that must be taken, so most will want to 'get the most', and spend some time doing it. Chassis allowances are more liberal than IT, and the cage rules will support super stiff springs, which need bucks up dampers. Yes, you can spend a fortune on dampers for IT, but the payback just isn't there, if the chassis is undamped and bending. It will be reasonable to build a solid car, but when more people decide to go after the big prize, the costs WILL ramp up, and there WILL be a tangible benefit to the high costs..

IT would have had this happen (more than it has seen in the past or currently) too. It's the nature of the beast. Popularity breeds cost increases. But at some point there are diminishing returns, and I think IT has that point (for most cars,- car choice is of course, key) at a lower level.

I'm not sure I buy the "farm league/move up" aspect. LOTs of people want to race a prep level, and race it seriously. Lots of people aren't of the mind to swap cars and classes "moving up the ladder". They'd rather move up the ladder in one car.

IT is a popular prep level. If you want proof, look at LP prod. Suddenly, Prod is hot. I bet a full prep prod car hasn't been built in yeeears. LP builds are pretty close to IT builds.
IF IT had been a National category, had the same perks and contingencies as Prod, I suggest we'd see a whole different landscape. Prod was in a world of hurt 5 or so years ago, and somebody woke up and came up with a way to stuff the genie back in the bottle.

*The 24 thing was for Speed TV...but that ship has sailed.

Also, people warned that if IT went National, it would die, (Or be ruined) because nobody would want to race if there were big money builds winning all the time. I think that looking at SM proves that wrong. Lots of guys race and they know they won't be winning races with their used up cheap cars. Why would IT be different?

It's water under the bridge now, but it would sure be interesting to see how things would look if IT went national, and reduced the 5 yr limit to 3....and classed interesting cars, and it happened before we lost the SPEED TV contract... I always thought newer IT level cars would attract new racers to SCCA better than any of the classes they televised.

[Knestis]

Sorry - "major league" vs. "minor league" isn't a very good analogy. I don't understand in the infield fly rule but last I checked, both AAA and the Bigs played to the same rules.

And if there's desire for a pathway or pipeline, there's no easier way to move than with a car in the SAME class.

Arguments based on "controlling costs" - certainly within a class - simply are NOT valid. The only thing that increases cost is the desire to be competitive, and popularity of a class increases competition. The only way to keep a lid on costs, absent a REAL claim rule, is to limit popularity. I think we've accomplished that in the past few years with IT. Sadly.

And I'm sorry if it looked like I was suggesting an anti-IT bias among CRB members. There wasn't. In fact, the problem was that they liked it too much, with an investment in the status quo.

K

[Ron Earp]

It's pretty obvious that STL was largely a way to give it cars a path to the ruboffs. Not just the "IT cars may compete" clause, but the evolutionary path solves what many saw as a problem of regional status.

What Jake said. STL gives a few select cars, a very narrow portion of IT, a path to the National SCCA scene. But the majority of IT is left to be regional. STL could have encompassed all of the IT cars with a heavy rules rewrite but that clearly wasn't the goal and would have created sweeping changes in the SCCA.

With my limited knowledge of the regional and national classes in the SCCA I think it would have been better had IT made a transition to the national program. That would have effectively ended the national/regional distinction and class system in the SCCA and produced a more cohesive club. It would have been a difficult transition for the club to make but I'm sure it could have been accomplished.

Of course I didn't feel that way back in 2008, but I was also only three years into my racing hobby at that point and knew very little about how the SCCA operated and even less about its long term goals. I know a bit more now, but not much. It is still unclear to me the logic behinds the SCCA's regional and national racing programs. Looks like to me there ought to be classes, regional championships, and a national championship. Largest subscribed classes get to go to the national championship, nice and easy.

[Greg Amy]

Yes it would, but it would also be interesting to see how many drivers have left the category and run exclusively in LP prod or STL at Nationals / Majors.

I can name a few east of the Mississippi (and sometimes the circumstances, such as a destroyed IT car, influenced the decision), but I'd be surprised if the nationwide total was any more than just a blip on the radar.
Ditto. From what I've seen, attending events and intently watching results, there are very few, if any, people that have left IT for STL. The class has allowed select IT competitors to also compete in STL, but I honestly can't think of any that made the swap*. Hell, SM has lost more competitors to STL than ITx...

- GA

* Gregg, feeling a finger pointing my way. Not so. I was done with ITx after my NX adventures, as I was unhappy with the outlook of classifications of the two cars I had a choice with at the time (ITA NX2000 and ITS Integra GSR). Good or bad, agree or disagree with that point of view, I had already made the conscious decision to discontinue any serious participation in the category. This "STL thing" just dropped in my lap at a most advantageous time...

[Chip42]

The farm league analogy was simply my attempt to point out that viewing IT as a stock of drivers / car to feed other classes hurts IT. assuming a limited number of drivers and the sort of obvious "evolutionary" system, the end result of a healthy ST and LP prod HAS to be, largely, the result of transition FROM other classes. I'm sure SS/T refugees have also moved in, and we know some entries have been added, so it's certainly not a perfect analogy. I also treat IT as a class that is itself the end goal.

to Greg's post - I see more SM cars moving to IT and ST than IT to SM. not counting double dippers. that's down here. up there it may and likely is different.

[gran racing]

Yes, popularity drives monies spent in a category but it goes a step further than that. A category can cater to different groups of people. Same reason why more people with much larger budgets in IT gravitate towards ITR than on the other side, ITB. Certainly ITC.

[mossaidis]

Looks like to me there ought to be classes, regional championships, and a national championship. Largest subscribed classes get to go to the national championship, nice and easy.

That's the magic sauce. "nice and easy". Lord knows that finishing at the top 5 in regional championships are partly dictated by just showing up.

[Gregg]

* Gregg, feeling a finger pointing my way. Not so. I was done with ITx after my NX adventures, as I was unhappy with the outlook of classifications of the two cars I had a choice with at the time (ITA NX2000 and ITS Integra GSR). Good or bad, agree or disagree with that point of view, I had already made the conscious decision to discontinue any serious participation in the category. This "STL thing" just dropped in my lap at a most advantageous time...
Actually, I was talking specifically about Kirk. I could be wrong but I venture that his decision to go exclusively to STL was made far easier knowing that getting back on track would require a new race car.

[mossaidis]

There's a price to just getting up and building another car, let alone keeping the same chassis and moving to another class. I think that's whay there has not been this ... exodus. I personally have too much invested in the Civic and would not consider changing car/class until I feel I have gone full circle with it. In Kirk's case, he had a clear opportunity to change class given the current structure... IT is NOT going National. Should I have been in the same situation, I would have done the same. So, the out-go rate from IT may not big at this point, but over time, folks who are passionate about the build/ease/dependability of IT and wanting to compete at a true national level will be disappointed and will need to move to another class, sadly.

[jjjanos]

Arguments based on "controlling costs" - certainly within a class - simply are NOT valid. The only thing that increases cost is the desire to be competitive, and popularity of a class increases competition. The only way to keep a lid on costs, absent a REAL claim rule, is to limit popularity. I think we've accomplished that in the past few years with IT. Sadly.

No, you cannot control costs within a class. If someone wants spend the GDP of Swaziland on building an IT car, they can do it. BUT, costs are effectively controlled. The marginal improvement for very expensive items is well within a single standard deviation of mean performance for the car.

Go ahead and have custom-designed, $500,000 shocks for a car... from the lap times, I doubt that anyone will be able to tell the difference between the $500K shock car and someone who doesn't. (At least from the lap times.)

[Greg Amy]

Actually, I was talking specifically about Kirk. I could be wrong but I venture that his decision to go exclusively to STL was made far easier knowing that getting back on track would require a new race car.
He'll confirm, but his move to STU was more about a new opportunity with Cameron's Jetta TDI program coupled to the destruction of Pablo more than anything else. Had either one of those not happened I suggest Kirk would still be in - or headed back to - ITB. - GA

[lateapex911]

He'll confirm, but his move to STU was more about a new opportunity with Cameron's Jetta TDI program coupled to the destruction of Pablo more than anything else. Had either one of those not happened I suggest Kirk would still be in - or headed back to - ITB. - GA

It's true that outside circumstances often are the catalyst for change.

Greg speaks the truth about his situation. But thats Greg, he steps in gold poo all the damn time, LOL. Also, he had a pretty short list of one or two cars he would race. Although he did seriously consider an ITA Miata effort, but his partner made the mistake of doing a realistic budget.
So Greg stuck with what he had and could convert fairly easily to STL, and it just so (lucky gold poo) happened that it is one of the select few cars that has a good chance of success in STL.

But make no mistake, that classes ability to go to the Runoffs is a MAJOR draw for Greg.

My car, a first gen RX-7, is at the end of it's life in terms of rebuild-able parts so it was time to say goodbye.
But were I to get back into the racing pool, I'd look very seriously at non IT categories simply because of the National status.
I love the IT ruleset. Not too much, not too little. But I'm not a fan of the limitations, and there is a lot of financial pull to run where you can defray costs. As a RWD guy, I'd think hard about LP Prod.

[Xian]

Honestly, I'm a little surprised that more folks with Civic/CRX/Integra's haven't jumped into STL builds. It's an easy motor swap to a class that "fixes" some of the inherent weak parts of the cars (brakes) and should reduce operating/consumables costs (lighter car, bigger brakes).

[Knestis]

The Jetta was a great opportunity and made my final decision for me but I wasn't going to build a new car for IT once it became clear Pablo was no more. I REALLY miss that car, and the well-attended of those races - MARRS, Festival, ARRC - but we've seen the golden days of the category at this point. PERHAPS not ITR but in the slower classes, certainly.

K

EDIT - Had Pablo NOT been squashed, I'd still be there but only until it was new tub time.

[Andy Bettencourt]

On IT going National. I wrote this 5 years ago and I still feel the same way.


What is broken that I see this fixing? My desire to build, maintain and race a car with the ruleset and cars I think are the best fit for me - for a SCCA National Championship. Yes, I can go National racing in Prod, GT, SM, SRF, etc...but those classes don't interest me as much. I like to upgrade - but not to the tune of Prod, so IT is perfect for me.

As far as 'going National' raising the cost of being competitive in IT - that is a misguided sentiment. POPULARITY raises the cost. The more people, the more competition, the more money. If National status raises the popularity of IT (which I think is inevitable), then costs will rise for some areas.

Opinions will vary on the affects - and that is because in some areas nothing will change in terms of money and prep level. Some areas will see an influx of full-prep cars...and the affects of THAT is also debatable.

You could easliy make the arguement that if the 'heavy hitter' in some of the lesser subscribed pockets goes National, it may actually INCREASE regional competition because the perception of that door opening for the 'average racer' could be there as that HH leaves for a different group of fish to fry.

What is best for the class Nationally is a tough call IMHO.

[Greg Amy]

But make no mistake, that classes ability to go to the Runoffs is a MAJOR draw for Greg.
Yes, but...that was because I wanted an excuse to drive Road America.

Ironically, after 2013 that draw is no more (current rumor is the Runoffs is going to Laguna Seca for 2014). And the "Majors" program requires extensive Eastern Seaboard travel (Daytona to Watkins Glen) to contest a championship. Ergo, even if the Runoffs were at a reasonably-attainable and -attractive race track in 2014 (such as at Road Atlanta, where God has always intended them to be, even despite the 1990's destruction of His temple), I'd actually use the Regional path to qualify for the event.

Having done both Regional and National racing over the last quarter-century, I've always found the Regional events to be more competitive, more enjoyable, less stressful, and a lot more sociable. And I suggest those who feel that Improved Touring needs to go National in order to try to attain some elusive goal should look back at the quality of the grass on their own side of the fence.

GA, who's back to Regional racing in '14...

[Knestis]

If you look back at some of my arguments FOR national status, you'll see that I explained that I would continue to run regionals as well - or more likely a mix of both. Part of the benefit of national status, to my way of thinking, is systemic rather than immediately personal.

For example, what would the current resale value of any given IT car in the IT.com classifieds be if it were eligible for Nationals? Higher or lower than is the case right now...? Would it be easier to sell or harder?

K

[Greg Amy]

I understand your systemic argument, but...

...what would the current resale value of any given IT car in the IT.com classifieds be if it were eligible for Nationals?
A straw man argument, as net-net it would be no different. One can argue that IT cars could be "worth" more on resale were the class National, but the costs to prepare them to that attractive National level would be higher. So, really, no difference.

Same goes for Andy's popularity - yet circular - argument, "POPULARITY raises the cost." He's right, but a class does not become popular BECAUSE it's National; in fact, due to participation requirements, a class will not become National until it is popular.

Or until you invite in Spec Miatas to double dip... ;) ...but be careful what you ask for...."one should be loyal to the nightmare of their choice"...

- GA

[jjjanos]

current rumor is the Runoffs is going to Laguna Seca for 2014....

Why does the club wanted to file Chapter 11?

[Z3_GoCar]

.... As a RWD guy, I'd think hard about LP Prod.

Jake,

LP is actually a misnomer, it's prep levels 1 and 2. Prep level 2 is what used to be LP, but in my case it's almost exactly what I get in STU ( 12:1 compression, 0.5" valve lift, stock intake manifold/TB, but no dry sump or h-beam rods). So N/A STU and EP level 2 cars should have the same power (no suprise there).

[Andy Bettencourt]

Same goes for Andy's popularity - yet circular - argument, "POPULARITY raises the cost." He's right, but a class does not become popular BECAUSE it's National; in fact, due to participation requirements, a class will not become National until it is popular.

Or until you invite in Spec Miatas to double dip... ;) ...but be careful what you ask for...."one should be loyal to the nightmare of their choice"...

- GA

Except I'll bet you ITS, ITA and ITB have enough car counts right now to hit the top 10 in class participation. So the popularity is there, it may just get MORE popular...and signal to the PTB that the simple, scaled down nature of the ruleset is the draw.

Could be.

[Greg Amy]

Except I'll bet you ITS, ITA and ITB have enough car counts right now to hit the top 10 in class participation.

As we've argued ad nauseum, only because they're not National. If they were National, it's likely they'd not be as popular.

Again, IT is popular because of its consistent ruleset, and that consistency exists solely - ONLY - because it's Regional only.


Could be.
But won't be.

I don't know WHY you guys keep circle-jerking yourselves over an argument that's been going on for FAR longer than any of you have been in racing. It's a question that's been asked - and answered - numerous times since I started racing in IT in 1985.

Let it go.

- GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

No one is arguing. It came up and we are talking about it. It's what we do.

I disagree that IT couldn't enter National status with the same rules and procedures it has now. The CRB just has to admit it it's popular BECAUSE that stuff works and not dork it up.

[lateapex911]

I think IT could NOT go National as is, BUT, with tweaks and some mods and trimming it could.

But, yea, the people who don't want it to don't want it too, and that's that.

[lateapex911]

Same goes for Andy's popularity - yet circular - argument, "POPULARITY raises the cost." He's right, but a class does not become popular BECAUSE it's National; in fact, due to participation requirements, a class will not become National until it is popular.

Or until you invite in Spec Miatas to double dip... ;) ...but be careful what you ask for...."one should be loyal to the nightmare of their choice"...

- GA

Good thing you added your Spec Miata qualifying line!

Without SM double dippers where would STL be last year, etc?
Of course pure subtraction can't really answer the question because of the "I know this class is Runoffs bound" factor, where some builds happen ONLY if the class is Runoffs material, increasing car counts.
If you build it, they will come"

Same thing can be said for IT, of course.

[shwah]

I would not call it an exodus, but I made the decision, and I know 4 or 5 others with the same car that did the same, to move to a different class. The thing that I find surprising is that these folks are spread out across multiple regions and divisions. I would have expected to see some concentration based on the local health of IT.

The motivators are not all the same. Some think the competitive balance is better, and like that it will be actively managed. Some really do want to be able to do the runoffs. Others just see more participation in the national classes in their area, and between that and the contingencies they expect more bang for their racing buck. In my case it is a combination of all three.

[JoshS]

Hi guys! Stopped back in to see what's going on.

Looks like exactly the same people talking about exactly the same things, except that a bunch of us aren't racing in IT (or some of us, at all) anymore :-)

[JeffYoung]

Josh, good to see you.

I think I mentioned this you via email a while back but kudos to you again for helping us get past some of the issues with the CRB, and for pushing for publication of the Ops Manual. Classing cars is amazingly easy for the most part now that we hve rules, and it is very hard to go outside them.

In that regard, IT is vastly improved even over its "heyday" of 15 years ago.