ITAC News.

[lateapex911]

I thought it might be cool to have a thread about the ITAC here. Just as a thread that can float up from time to time as ITAC issues arise. Or, in this case, when we have an announcement.

This ones actually good for IT guys.

I have it on good word that one of our members, Chris Albin, has been cherry picked from our midst, and will be heading off to serve on the CRB!

Congrats to Chris on the "promotion" (his pay hike will NOT be retroactive, LOL)

While it's bad news for the ITAC, as Chris was one of our more active members, it is great news for the SCCA as a whole, and IT guys in particular, as having another IT voice on the CRB is a great thing.

Chris runs a VW in ITB, as well as a VW in G-Prod.

He joins recent ITAC alumni Peter Keane (Honda ITB guy, finished 3rd at the ARRCs this year) on the CRB.

I'm thinking the CRB can't be too worried about the job the ITAC is doing as it's pulling some of our guys out as of late. ;)

[lateapex911]

More news on the ITAC front.

Recently, we've lost (as noted above) two members to the CRB: Peter Keane (ITB Accord) and Chris Albin (ITB Golf).

We've filled in the open slots and the announcement was made today.

Congrats to these new ITACers:

Bob Stretch

Marshall Lytle

Josh Sirota





I think we all are familiar with them, and I'm pleased with the wide range of experience and backgrounds they bring to the plate.





Be nice to them until they get their helmets fitted..;)

[mlytle]

More news on the ITAC front.

Recently, we've lost (as noted above) two members to the CRB: Peter Keane (ITB Accord) and Chris Albin (ITB Golf).

We've filled in the open slots and the announcement was made today.

Congrats to these new ITACers:

Bob Stretch

Marshall Lytle

Josh Sirota
I think we all are familiar with them, and I'm pleased with the wide range of experience and backgrounds they bring to the plate.
Be nice to them until they get their helmets fitted..;)
[/b]

only a helmet? i am going down to my gunner's mate tomorrow for a full kevlar body armour fitting! :D

marshall
ITAC newbie

[dj10]

[quote] More news on the ITAC front.

Recently, we've lost (as noted above) two members to the CRB: Peter Keane (ITB Accord) and Chris Albin (ITB Golf).

We've filled in the open slots and the announcement was made today.

Congrats to these new ITACers:

Bob Stretch

Marshall Lytle

Josh Sirota



:happy204:

[PSherm]

only a helmet? i am going down to my gunner's mate tomorrow for a full kevlar body armour fitting! :D

marshall
ITAC newbie
[/b]

Body armour is only needed if you're on the Prod committee! :lol:

[erlrich]

only a helmet? i am going down to my gunner's mate tomorrow for a full kevlar body armour fitting! :D

marshall
ITAC newbie
[/b] This is cool... now I can go hunt down an ITAC member at my local track and personally give him hell for all the things Andy and Jake post on the board here :D . I'm liking this.

Seriously, congrats to our new ITAC members. I'm sure they'll contribute much to making a great class even better.

[lateapex911]

Thats pretty funny Earl.

We get some "interesting letters", and one guy in particular writes long and scathing ones demanding huge changes..(like we all get fired, LOL)

Anyway, it turned out that he was at Lime Rock for a Pro race, so I ambled over to his trailer to say hi. The look on his face when I introduced myself as "Hey, I'm Jake Gulick, ITAC guy...you know, the guys who get your letters.." was priceless. I thought he was going to drop right there. But he recovered, and apologized, and then went on to reiterate his point. I smiled the whole time.

Seriously though, I've been approached by quite a few, esp when I'm in Atlanta, and everyone has been cool, and we've had productive conversations. I would encourage anyone who can to say hi, as long as it's not on grid with one minute to go!

[JimLill]

This is cool... now I can go hunt down an ITAC member at my local track and personally give him hell for all the things Andy and Jake post on the board here :D . I'm liking this.

Seriously, congrats to our new ITAC members. I'm sure they'll contribute much to making a great class even better.

[/b]


Congrats to the newly appointed......... and it would be nice if at (most) every IT race there was a ITAC member present and if there was a Q&A type session during the weekend. Or at least once during a season, in each region have such a GTG..

[lateapex911]

You know, I discussed that very idea with folks, and I wanted to do it at the ARRCs, but the idea fell on disinterested ears.

I would be happy to do some Q&A at events, and thought the ARRCs were a good place to start. We had 3 ITAC guys there this year, and 4 the year before, IIRC. It would have to be fit into an already busy schedule, and that proved to be the biggest undoing of the idea. We can bring it up again if there's interest.

[mlytle]

Thats pretty funny Earl.

We get some "interesting letters", and one guy in particular writes long and scathing ones demanding huge changes..(like we all get fired, LOL)

[/b]

would i know that guy? ;)




This is cool... now I can go hunt down an ITAC member at my local track and personally give him hell for all the things Andy and Jake post on the board here :D . I'm liking this.


[/b]
oh oh...time to repaint the car and change the avatar... maybe something with a big target on it? :D

where do i find that "black helicopter" avatar?

seriously...hunt me down..easy to find..always in paddock space f16 at summit point!

[lateapex911]

would i know that guy? ;)
[/b]

Oh, I'm thinking you just might.

(Nicer guy in person, actually)

[Darren]

"I would be happy to do some Q&A at events, & thought the ARRC was a good place to start. We had 3 ITAC guys there this year, & 4 the year before. It would have to be fit into an already busy schedule, & that proved to be the biggest undoing of the idea. We can bring it up again if there's interest."

(OG) I would not give up on the idea. Maybe it's just a matter of saying where & when w/lots of lead time. I know for a fact that there have always been plenty of drivers w/productive things to say at the Runoffs meetings that would never take the time to write a letter (or even send an email). There are a lot of intelligent guys out there running IT cars. Being able to tap into them en masse is a rare opportunity that should not be missed.

[lateapex911]

OK, in the interest of keeping up with the happenings, and although there's already a thread on this, just in case it was missed, the ITAC is pleased to announce that Kirk Knestis has agreed to be the new punching bag, and has joined the ITAC effective Jan 1 2008.

Welcome Kirk! I'm glad the stars finally aligned!

[lateapex911]

This just in, Jeff Young and Scott Giles have decided to agree to terms. Welcome guys!

[JeffYoung]

I'm told the pay is exceptional....

Looking forward to helping out.

[spnkzss]

This just in, Jeff Young and Scott Giles have decided to agree to terms. Welcome guys!

There goes the neighborhood. We're all doomed. :blink:

[tom91ita]

so who are the current ITAC members?

did two others come off the committee or is this two additional members?

[lateapex911]

Two out, two in.

Long time member Geroge Roffe, (and frequent IT.com poster, back in the "Miller Days", has been struggling with work and life related time issues. (I think he must've gotten a new hottie GF, LOL) and found that things were getting spread too thin. And Bob Clarke, andother long timer, is racing more in the prod category, and has some pressing family issues,.....so.....

We got lucky. Scott has lots of IT experience, and has been an occasional critic of the SCCA way, and even the ITAC, so having him on board is kinda cool.

And Jeff has shown lots of hard work on the ITACs behalf in the past. He and Ron Earp answered the phone when i called and said, "You know that list of cars too fast for ITS? Time to get that going", and along with the "ITR ad hoc" guys, created that class. Giles was in on that too.

So, both have a lot going for them: they are active IT racers, they represent cars and classes that helps the ITAC remain diversified. (We REALLY needed some Brit car expertise!) and they are geographically ok too.

So, if you see them at the track feel free to pat them on the back or kick them in the butt, LOL.

Oh...on edit, the current ITAC is;

Andrew Bettencourt, Grand Poobah
Josh Sirota, West Coaster
Kirk Knestis Resident Policy Doc
Marshall Lytle BMW insurgent
Lee Graser "For the People!"
Les Chaney "Just Say No!"
Jeff Young, British Liaison
Scott Giles Resident Honda guru
and me,

[Xian]

Nice! Congrats to both Jeff and Scott. I'm certain that they'll be excellent additions the ITAC. :)

[Doc Bro]

Two out, two in.

Long time member Geroge Roffe, (and frequent IT.com poster, back in the "Miller Days", has been struggling with work and life related time issues. (I think he must've gotten a new hottie GF, LOL) and found that things were getting spread too thin. And Bob Clarke, andother long timer, is racing more in the prod category, and has some pressing family issues,.....so.....

We got lucky. Scott has lots of IT experience, and has been an occasional critic of the SCCA way, and even the ITAC, so having him on board is kinda cool.

And Jeff has shown lots of hard work on the ITACs behalf in the past. He and Ron Earp answered the phone when i called and said, "You know that list of cars too fast for ITS? Time to get that going", and along with the "ITR ad hoc" guys, created that class. Giles was in on that too.

So, both have a lot going for them: they are active IT racers, they represent cars and classes that helps the ITAC remain diversified. (We REALLY needed some Brit car expertise!) and they are geographically ok too.

So, if you see them at the track feel free to pat them on the back or kick them in the butt, LOL.

Oh...on edit, the current ITAC is;

Andrew Bettencourt, Grand Poobah
Josh Sirota, West Coaster
Kirk Knestis Resident Policy Doc
Marshall Lytle BMW insurgent
Lee Graser "For the People!"
Les Chaney "Just Say No!"
Jeff Young, British Liaison
Scott Giles Resident Honda guru
and me,


Jake,

I heard that your seat was up for grabs to whoever could register a higher post count than yours by year end. Is that true????


R

[lateapex911]

Only Kirk has a shot, and he's already on board, but go for it man!

(High post counts are the sign of oldness or weirdness, both are bad!)

[Ron Earp]

Congratulations to Jeff and Scott. I think both will improve the ITAC composition and help further Improved Touring within the club. Nice picks, enjoy!

[1stGenBoy]

As Jake noted I have been racing a lot in Nationals ( GTL) and my kids are at the age that Im doing a lot more with them so, it was getting more and more difficult to devote the time needed to properly do my job on the ITAC . I still have my ITB car and hope I can get it out next year with my son driving it for his first SCCA drivers school. The ITAC is a great group of guys and believe me they have nothing but the best interests of the class at heart. Sure sometimes things don't happen has fast as some people like BUT they are all volunteers and put in a lot of time and effort to make IT a great class.

Bob Clark

[Knestis]

Miller had the record for a long time, and I was second. Then I got a new job, Miller DID get a hottie GF, and Jake got his second win.

K

[chuck baader]

Congrats, all. Now we can look forward to parity in IT:happy204: Chuck

[Andy Bettencourt]

Miller had the record for a long time, and I was second. Then I got a new job, Miller DID get a hottie GF, and Jake got his second win.

K

Of course some of us have to names...that put us WAY up there...

[dominojd]

Jake,

I heard that your seat was up for grabs to whoever could register a higher post count than yours by year end. Is that true????


R

Rob,

Jake is the biggest post whore going. Good Luck. :)

[lateapex911]

Andy, what was your screen name before you switched to AB? Didn't you have 4000 posts or so on that name?

Combined, u da winnar, man!

On edit:

In an effort to reduce my post count, I will add this in a ninja edit. Your combined total is 5555, I think, soon, you will roll over Miller.
(Unless he snafus the GF thing!)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Nope, I actually stay right where I am. ITSRX7.

[lateapex911]

Just as an added notice, read in the general thread area below for an announcement that one of the high paying, highly coveted (Man, the manufacturer perks are staggering, not to mention the God like control we yield!) has become open with Marshall Lytle's appointment to a DC dictatorship position, or some such.

Resumes being accepted...

[ddewhurst]

***Miller DID get a hottie GF,***

Sure, Weisberg gets married, then Miller finds a hottie. Way to go Bill.:happy204: Chances are John will come to Road America. Will the hottie let you come.

[JoshS]

The next ITAC meeting is next Monday, 2/22/10.

I will be the new chair of the committee. We will spend the first part of next week's meeting discussing how many members we want on the committee and some of the resumes we have received to fill open seats.

We will also discuss, of course, how we will operate, especially with respect to the adjustment of existing listings.

As of right now, the change request letters to be discussed include 3 letters about the IT ruleset, 7 letters requesting new car classifications, and 7 letters requesting adjustments to existing car classifications. I sincerely hope to be able to close out some of these requests.

You can expect some updates from me after the meeting.

In general, I would sincerely appreciate your support with getting some good momentum going in order to be responsive to member requests. The more we get bogged down in politics, the less time there is to discuss good ideas that further the goal of fun, competitive, large-turnout racing in IT.

[RacerBill]

Josh: Congratulations! I wish you all the best luck with dealing with all the issues that have come up in the last few months. I know that we will be able to move forward and I look forward to working with you and the ITAC. And thanks for your service.

[Knestis]

Best wishes for progress, Josh. You know that I think the political and organizational problems ought to actually get solved but if you're able to accomplish what needs doing, that's what's important.

K

[lateapex911]

I echo Kirks comments, and I like the idea of updates. I think the IT community has been very lucky to have had probably the most open communication with with it's adhoc as any in the club, and am happy to see you furthering that.

[gran racing]

Without getting some of the other issues resolved, what process will the ITAC be using? Unfortunately figuring out some of the politics items is pretty important at this stage otherwise things are just going to go around in circles. If / how previously classed cars will be reviewed (the numerous cars the ITAC already worked on) is pretty critical.

Glad to hear that you'll continue the open communication with us Josh.

[924Guy]

Best of luck going forward, and thanks for taking on the thankless task. I'm sure we'll be talking more... ;)

[Bill Miller]

Congrats and best of luck to you Josh! I really commend your courage and dedication in accepting this in light of recent developments.:smilie_pokal::023:

[lateapex911]

So, any updates on things available?

[spnkzss]

So, any updates on things available?

You know better than that Jake. There is nobody left on the ITAC that is willing to talk publicly. :D

[JoshS]

My intent was to send something on the Friday before each call, but just for Jake, this month's will go early:

The next call is next Monday, 3/22/10.

In the March Fastrack, the CRB published a request for member input about engine mount allowances in IT, and the response has been fantastic. We have 40+ letters on the topic, which I think may be more than we ever got in response to requests for input about the ECU rules, and that request was published over many months. A new record, I'm pretty sure. I expect to close out this issue during next week's call.

Overall, the letters to be discussed (as of today) include 2 rule changes, 7 requests to look at existing listings, and 7 requests for new listings.

I know you're all wondering how we're going to operate with respect to the adjustments of existing listings. For the moment, we will be following the rules. That means that listings that have been around for a long time are not really adjustable, unless it can be shown that there is a real error. One example of such an error would be two cars that are, for all practical purposes, the same as each other, yet have wildly different weights (or even different CLASSES, as is highlighted in one of this month's letters.) By "same," I don't mean '88 Honda 1.6L vs. '99 Mazda 1.6L here. I mean ... the same parts in the drivetrain, the same or essentially identical chassis, etc. Recently, both Honda and BMW listings have fallen into this category and have been adjusted as errors, and we will continue to correct such errors as they are identified.

There is also a mechanism to change the rules, and I know that a lot of you are in favor of doing that (and I think that many of you are not, as well). As chair of the committee I will certainly be open to such a request, but please understand that any rule change of that nature will be conducted with due care, with input from the committee, from the CRB, from the members, and ultimately, from the BOD.

Josh

[Spikep]

Thanks for the update Josh.

Spike

[rsportvolvo]

I know you're all wondering how we're going to operate with respect to the adjustments of existing listings. For the moment, we will be following the rules. That means that listings that have been around for a long time are not really adjustable, unless it can be shown that there is a real error. One example of such an error would be two cars that are, for all practical purposes, the same as each other, yet have wildly different weights (or even different CLASSES, as is highlighted in one of this month's letters.) By "same," I don't mean '88 Honda 1.6L vs. '99 Mazda 1.6L here. I mean ... the same parts in the drivetrain, the same or essentially identical chassis, etc. Recently, both Honda and BMW listings have fallen into this category and have been adjusted as errors, and we will continue to correct such errors as they are identified.

What about cars with the same chassis, different drivelines, and the same weight? Is that considered and adjustment or an error?

[GKR_17]

What about cars with the same chassis, different drivelines, and the same weight? Is that considered and adjustment or an error?

Like the ITS Alfa Milano's. One has a 2.5 liter engine with 154 hp, the other is 3.0 liter with 183 hp. Both weight in at 2780 lbs.

[JeffYoung]

Other than engine mounts and some clean up not a whole lot going on on the ITAC board.

[quadzjr]

What about cars that were recently classed that were wrong? :D

I know .. I know..:dead_horse:

[JLawton]

There is also a mechanism to change the rules, and I know that a lot of you are in favor of doing that (and I think that many of you are not, as well). As chair of the committee I will certainly be open to such a request, but please understand that any rule change of that nature will be conducted with due care, with input from the committee, from the CRB, from the members, and ultimately, from the BOD.

Josh

Do you mean a rule change in reference to using the/a formula? I've heard it called a comp adjustment and yes, that would be a rules change. But what's the definition of a comp adjustment? Using a formula to correct weights is not a comp adjustment (nor rules change) in my book.......... Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? Which is very possible since it's been a looong day and I'm tired!!

[Bill Miller]

My intent was to send something on the Friday before each call, but just for Jake, this month's will go early:

The next call is next Monday, 3/22/10.

In the March Fastrack, the CRB published a request for member input about engine mount allowances in IT, and the response has been fantastic. We have 40+ letters on the topic, which I think may be more than we ever got in response to requests for input about the ECU rules, and that request was published over many months. A new record, I'm pretty sure. I expect to close out this issue during next week's call.

Overall, the letters to be discussed (as of today) include 2 rule changes, 7 requests to look at existing listings, and 7 requests for new listings.

I know you're all wondering how we're going to operate with respect to the adjustments of existing listings. For the moment, we will be following the rules. That means that listings that have been around for a long time are not really adjustable, unless it can be shown that there is a real error. One example of such an error would be two cars that are, for all practical purposes, the same as each other, yet have wildly different weights (or even different CLASSES, as is highlighted in one of this month's letters.) By "same," I don't mean '88 Honda 1.6L vs. '99 Mazda 1.6L here. I mean ... the same parts in the drivetrain, the same or essentially identical chassis, etc. Recently, both Honda and BMW listings have fallen into this category and have been adjusted as errors, and we will continue to correct such errors as they are identified.

There is also a mechanism to change the rules, and I know that a lot of you are in favor of doing that (and I think that many of you are not, as well). As chair of the committee I will certainly be open to such a request, but please understand that any rule change of that nature will be conducted with due care, with input from the committee, from the CRB, from the members, and ultimately, from the BOD.

Josh

Thanks for the update Josh. Would something like the VW New Beetle in ITC and the Mk IV Golf in ITB but an example of what I bolded?

[JoshS]

Thanks for the update Josh. Would something like the VW New Beetle in ITC and the Mk IV Golf in ITB but an example of what I bolded?

Without totally understanding the differences between those two cars, they could be. One reason why they might be in different classes appropriately though is if their achievable weight in IT trim is dramatically different. I think that might have been the belief with those cars but I'm not sure.

Also, in my opinion the Volvo/Alfa examples mentioned above could also be considered similar errors (speaking as an individual, not as the ITAC here), but we'd need to discuss them in committee. We have some letters regarding the Volvos so we'll see where that goes.

[JoshS]

The next call is next Monday, 4/26/10.

We have quite a lot of items on the agenda this month. We will continue to discuss the proposal for which we asked for member input, the engine mount allowance for IT. There are 5 additional letters asking for new allowances in IT as well.

In terms of classifications and weights, we have requests for 5 new classifications and requests to adjust 7 existing ones. I think most of these are actionable at this point and we should be able to bring closure to many of them next week.

Josh

[gran racing]

and requests to adjust 7 existing ones

Josh, I'm SOOOOO confused with what's going on and what the current direction / stance on things are right now. I had thought that no cars already classed were going to be up for review and weight or class changes. Then the Civic si gets reclassed which has been in ITS for a long, long time. :shrug: Now requests are coming in for other existing cars? Are they getting the "no changes will be allowed" response? If not, what has happened to all of the previous cars that were being reviewed and had letters sent in? I know I've never seen anything posted on my request and it's been a damn long time even though it had been reviewed. I'm sure many other people haven't received answers.

At least from a membership perspective, one day it's this is okay the next day it's not. It would at least nice to see some consistancy. I recognize that you personally might not have control of some of these items but maybe you can shed some light on these?

[JoshS]

Josh, I'm SOOOOO confused with what's going on and what the current direction / stance on things are right now. I had thought that no cars already classed were going to be up for review and weight or class changes. Then the Civic si gets reclassed which has been in ITS for a long, long time. :shrug:

It's not that simple. We will make weight adjustments or reclass cars if the current listing appears to be an ERROR. Again, the "bar" right now for adjusting weight or class is that there have to be two basically identical cars, drivetrain-wise, with different classifications/weights, indicating that one of them must be an error because any reasonable person would classify them the same. Or alternately, if a car is classed at an unattainable weight, we'll try to reclass it.

This Civic kind of got both worlds. There were decent arguments on both sides of the "attainable weight" thing. In addition, at the same time we were classing the next-generation car with the very same engine, and THAT car was clearly going to ITA.


Now requests are coming in for other existing cars? Are they getting the "no changes will be allowed" response?

The volume of requests for looking at old listings hasn't really changed in either direction for the last few years. Some of the requests are just to fix bad spec line info or correct model years -- those are pretty straightforward. We have two of those this month. Most requests for weight adjustments will get the "no basis for a change" response but others might be considered errors and will get corrected. We just have to look through each letter and decide if there's any real basis for change.


If not, what has happened to all of the previous cars that were being reviewed and had letters sent in? I know I've never seen anything posted on my request and it's been a damn long time even though it had been reviewed. I'm sure many other people haven't received answers.

Give me a letter number or a date and I'll try to figure out what happened with older requests. I will say that every letter that was on the agenda for last month either got sent to the CRB or was tabled, and therefore, the authors should have received an automated response when that happened. If you or anyone wrote a letter more than a month ago and have not received anything about it or seen something in Fastrack, then the letter is NOT pending and either there was a failure to get the resolution into Fastrack or the letter was lost. The new letter tracking system is backed by a database and pretty much guarantees that nothing can fall through the cracks and has a record of the resolution of each letter, but in the old system we just hope we kept good notes. Member feedback about the new system has been excellent. In any case, send me e-mail with enough info about your letter for me to track it down, and I'll let you know what I find and we'll come up with the right approach for it depending on what turns up.

[lateapex911]

In addition, at the same time we were classing the next-generation car with the very same engine, and THAT car was clearly going to ITA.





Why was that car clearly going to ITA?

[mossaidis]

Civic dork alert!!!


This Civic kind of got both worlds. There were decent arguments on both sides of the "attainable weight" thing. In addition, at the same time we were classing the next-generation car with the very same engine, and THAT car was clearly going to ITA.

Could you clarify which car are you comparing with the 99-00 civic Si? Cause if it's the "next-generation car" the 02-05 Si, it's certainly DOES NOT have the "very same engine" or is it the same car by any means!

99-00 Civic Si had a B-series 1.6-liter B16A2 engine that made 160 hp (120 kW) at 7,600 RPM and 111 ft-lbs of torque at 7,000 RPM.

"02-05 Civic Si adopted the K-series K20A3 engine rated 160 bhp (120 kW) at 6500 rpm and 132 ft·lbf (179 N·m) at 5000 rpm. With a redline of 6,800 rpm, the Si distanced itself from the narrow, high-rpm powerband engine of its predecessor, and as a result saw a 20 percent increase in torque. ... the switch to MacPherson struts from double-wishbone suspension (in the '99-'00 si) resulted in less responsive handling, and a near-150 lb (68 kg) increase in weight to 2,744 lb (1,245 kg) contributed to slower acceleration than the lighter '99-'00 Si.Much of the weight gain is attributed to the chassis' stouter structure when compared to the previous generation hatchback, with the '02 Si boasting an increase in torsional rigidity by 95 percent and a bending rigidity increase of 22 percent..."

That should NOT stop you from putting both cars in ITA and treating them as having 160 hp though...

[rsportvolvo]

The next call is next Monday, 4/26/10.

We have quite a lot of items on the agenda this month. We will continue to discuss the proposal for which we asked for member input, the engine mount allowance for IT. There are 5 additional letters asking for new allowances in IT as well.

In terms of classifications and weights, we have requests for 5 new classifications and requests to adjust 7 existing ones. I think most of these are actionable at this point and we should be able to bring closure to many of them next week.

Josh

Can we get a rundown on last night's conference call?

[JoshS]

Can we get a rundown on last night's conference call?

Yes you may!

First of all ... everyone who had a letter on the agenda last night except for a couple in which we're still working out some final follow-up, should have already received an automated notice from the letter-tracking system that their letter was either forwarded to the CRB, or tabled. By the end of the week I expect that the remaining couple will be handled too.

In a few cases where there are multiple letters asking for effectively the same thing, only the first one received will receive a notification when things are tabled.

That said, we had a late start last night due to issues with the SCCA voice conferencing system (3rd month in a row we've had something go wrong with it), and we didn't really get started with a full slate of voices until about an hour late. So we didn't get to nearly as much as we would have hoped.

We had spirited discussions on all of the rules-change letters, which included requests for:


Alternate motor mounts
C-clip eliminators for live axle cars
Relocation of the engine reference sensor from the distributor to the crank (which turned into a discussion about ignition system allowances in general)
Battery relocation
Short shifters
Relax the roll cage mounting points limits
Forced induction cars in IT

A running theme during all of the discussions above was about the philosophy of IT and its place in the whole club racing program, with input from our CRB liaisons, of course. We discussed who our members are, who we want our members to be, etc.

All of these issues reached a conclusion in the ITAC last night and have been forwarded to the CRB for action. But understand that a couple of these are not slam dunks and if you haven't weighed in yet, your additional input could still be valuable as the CRB will have to weigh in on the ITAC recommendations at their next meeting.

I am going to avoid posting how things were concluded by the ITAC until the CRB acts on them, but I will present what I believe to be the strongest arguments on either side of a couple of these items. Note that this is the written policy that all committee members agree to when they join, and it's nothing new. Please understand that although these items have moved to the next step, these are still open items until they reach a final conclusion, which will be published in Fastrack. All rules changes ultimately need approval by the ITAC, the CRB, and the BOD.

On motor mounts, the strongest argument for the allowance says that alternate mounts, or just reinforced stock mounts, are a cheaper, easier way to relieve the pain of replacing fragile stock mounts on a regular basis. The strongest argument against the allowance is that this rule is unnecessary because there is already a very effective and inexpensive rule in place that will alleviate the same pain, and there is no need to advance our way down the slippery slope of rules creep. That's a gross summary of the discussion, there are a tremendous number of nuances and other arguments both pro & con. Most of them have been seen on various forums already.

The roll cage question was a fun one. On the negative side, there is a concern that allowing additions to the roll cage (tie to the pillars/roof, or extend to the front strut towers, etc) would change the game in IT builds quite a bit, and a lot of existing drivers might feel that we are just forcing them to spend money to be competitive. But on the pro side of the argument, there was a recent anecdote of a car that wanted to cross over from another club into IT, but its cage well exceeded IT rules, so the owner was told he'd have to remove all of that extra stuff. Had he done so, and had an injury-producing accident, could the club be held liable? And to what extent should the club be holding the line on safety mods? But, might a really extensive cage in a unibody car be LESS safe, due to the impact it would have on the original crush zones? Interesting discussion.

Due to the late start and the complex nature of some of the rules allowance questions, we were only able to close out a couple of the car classification letters before we quit at 11:30 eastern, and the rest were tabled for next month. I apologize to those of you waiting for action on those. We are doing our best and we will lead off our next meeting with those!

As always, please feel free to contact me privately to discuss any of these issues or anything else you've got on your mind. You can contact me through this forum and I will send you my phone number, or give me a number and a time to call you and I'll do my best to make it happen.

[benspeed]

Thanks Josh - and yes, I did receive an update on my request. Thanks!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks for the time to post this Josh.

[lateapex911]

Thanks Josh. The cage discussion is very very scary. The IT rules core brilliance is in the cage limitations. Once you tie the chassis together, you've opened the Pandoras box of huge spring rates and the attendant damper needs and costs. As it stands now, there's a strong diminishing returns effect in play on dampers. Spend all you want, but the benefits get mighty slim once you pass a certain pint. Tie the structure together, and that aspect goes out the window.

I'm still shocked the engine mount thing is in play. Tell Lee and Les to get in the current century, LOL.

[JeffYoung]

I totally agree on the cage issue. The person who brought it up makes valid points, but at the same time, allowing unlimited cages in IT makes a fundamental change to what has constitued an IT car for many, many years.

[trhoppe]

I cannot fathom how you could even talk about relaxing the cage rules but not allow alternate engine mounts. I cannot even come close to understanding. How can that conversation even start?

"hey, I know we just had a conversation about rules creep being the con for a modification, lets talk about redoing the cage on all IT cars". WHAT? REALLY?

[JoshS]

I cannot fathom how you could even talk about relaxing the cage rules but not allow alternate engine mounts. I cannot even come close to understanding. How can that conversation even start?

"hey, I know we just had a conversation about rules creep being the con for a modification, lets talk about redoing the cage on all IT cars". WHAT? REALLY?

Tom, we talk about every letter we receive. Trust me, we've spent more than 10x the time on engine mounts as cage rules in the last couple of months.

[Knestis]

...As always, please feel free to contact me privately to discuss any of these issues or anything else you've got on your mind. You can contact me through this forum and I will send you my phone number, or give me a number and a time to call you and I'll do my best to make it happen.

Ditto on the thanks for taking the time to circulate this information, Josh! :happy204:

Re: the above however, I would encourage the ITAC to answer questions in a public forum rather than through individual emails/calls. That approach just begs for misunderstandings, "don't tell anyone where you heard this" games, and at the very least the APPEARANCE of shenanigans. Anything that can be told to one member can be told to all members.

And feedback on proposals under consideration should go through channels - letters to the CRB - in order to be considered in any "official" capacity.

K

[mossaidis]

^^ CLARITY!!! we like.

[JoshS]

Re: the above however, I would encourage the ITAC to answer questions in a public forum rather than through individual emails/calls. That approach just begs for misunderstandings, "don't tell anyone where you heard this" games, and at the very least the APPEARANCE of shenanigans. Anything that can be told to one member can be told to all members.

Absolutely, anyone who calls me will get the same info and same opinions. Heck, I'll do a conference call if you want, town meeting style, it doesn't have to be 1-on-1. But we'll have to disagree about how misunderstandings start. The reason why I like to have these discussions in real-time instead of e-mail or worse, a forum, is that there's a tendency for people to read between the lines and find things that aren't there, or leap to conclusions that aren't correct. With real-time communication, there's an opportunity to correct those errors before they get out of control -- failure to correct those errors quickly is how bogus rumors start.

That doesn't mean I think the ITAC shouldn't engage in public discussions -- everyone learns from many of those discussions. I mean, look, here I am. But decisions that are still in process should be treated with due care, and I personally like the richness of live communication as a way to apply that care. Your mileage may vary but this is how I would prefer to do it.

[shwah]

Glad to hear that there is real discussion on the motor mount issue. Although I oppose the allowance, I have been looking at solutions to exploit the potential rule in the meantime.

[tom91ita]

too bad we can't modify one engine mount in lieu of a engine stay rod......

i think i'll look at how to tie my engine stay rod to my roll cage.

[Ron Earp]

That doesn't mean I think the ITAC shouldn't engage in public discussions -- everyone learns from many of those discussions. I mean, look, here I am. But decisions that are still in process should be treated with due care, and I personally like the richness of live communication as a way to apply that care. Your mileage may vary but this is how I would prefer to do it.


What if the majority of your club members prefer that the ITAC, and you by default, communicate to the unwashed masses via the written word on public internet forums?

I appreciate the update. How did the discussion with dizzy and crank triggers turn out?

[IPRESS]

YOU GUYS are Amazing!
Josh is going out of his way to communicate.
He explains why anybody involved in their right mind should be able to see that INTERNET BOARDS ARE FOR BSing cause it promotes crazy perceptions. He wants to talk realtime so that if you hear something and take it the wrong way he can explain what the real meaning was, instead of having the ITKKK posting tirades that may not be whats what. No kidding, he is pretty damn brave to use this forum or the sandbox at all. If he posts a message that the popular guys disagree with he stands to get a keyboard lashing like nowhere else. Be happy he is communicating, there are plenty that have learned their lesson an avoid this place and others like it as if it were a leper colony.
Josh you are a pretty sharp guy or so it seems!:happy204:

[Ron Earp]

I'm quite happy he is communicating. He's doing a good job and his efforts are much more than what many thought we might see out of the new ITAC what initially (from various reports) wasn't going to communicate much at all.

But Kirk makes a point, anything can be told to one member can be told to all members, or written to all members.

The internet forums have a huge advantage - written record, that word of mouth does not have. Did you ever play that little kid's game where you tell the first kid something and it goes around the room through word of mouth to all the other kids? The input and output of this process never match.

[JLawton]

i think i'll look at how to tie my engine stay rod to my roll cage.



Good one!!! :happy204:


.

[Knestis]

too bad we can't modify one engine mount in lieu of a engine stay rod......

i think i'll look at how to tie my engine stay rod to my roll cage.

Expand your thinking a little, Tom - my stayrod goes from the engine side of one mount to the chassis side of the same mount. It's about 4" long.

K

PS to Tom - How did your experience with 1:1 email with Jim Drago work, in terms of getting consistent information?

[tom91ita]

Expand your thinking a little, Tom - my stayrod goes from the engine side of one mount to the chassis side of the same mount. It's about 4" long.

K

PS to Tom - How did your experience with 1:1 email with Jim Drago work, in terms of getting consistent information?

i remember your description of your stayrod somewhere else and was actually thinking of that when i made the comment. perhaps my "stayrod" could be 3M windoweld in the middle of one engine mount?

i actually have already made up a mount this way from my Honda Challenge NASA days.

i think you saw most of the JD related corrospondence. i did ask a follow-up last week since i have never heard anything re: my questions from 2008 & 2009 and Josh was very gracious and prompt in giving me a response and a recommendation on how to press forward.

frankly, and this has nothing to do with Josh or his response, i am waiting for my 25 year pin to arrive and then i plan to quit SCCA.

[IPRESS]

I'm quite happy he is communicating. He's doing a good job and his efforts are much more than what many thought we might see out of the new ITAC what initially (from various reports) wasn't going to communicate much at all.

But Kirk makes a point, anything can be told to one member can be told to all members, or written to all members.

The internet forums have a huge advantage - written record, that word of mouth does not have. Did you ever play that little kid's game where you tell the first kid something and it goes around the room through word of mouth to all the other kids? The input and output of this process never match.

Yeah the internet banter is how all business should be conducted. B)This place is home of the "black helicopter society".
I would hope that Josh (and the rest of the CRB /ITAC) will operate the best way he sees fit.

And really.........You guys had your shot at running things, and did a nice job, but ya'll left, now some other bunch needs to have their chance, how about letting them have a shot before you PICK PICK PICK at every little thing. They seem to have broken down the stalemate and have things starting to get better as far as civil CRB / ITAC stuff goes.

[lateapex911]

I think it's GREAT that Josh is posting here, and I applaud it. I also agree that having 'town hall" conference calls would be awesome. I in fact, suggested a 'tent meeting" at the ARRC, but response to that idea was lacking.

But Kirk makes a fair point. Writing things in a public forum is a great way to have things on a public record, where anyone can see them...that is truths best ally. I see Josh's point about things being mis read or misunderstood. Well, choose the words carefully. Besides, IF that happens, a correction can be issued.

Mac, I'll tell you why I "left". I "left" because members, (like YOU) who were my bosses, were asking questions. To answer those questions honestly, I had to expose wrongdoing on the part of my superiors, the CRB. Perhaps 'wrongdoing" isn't the best choice of word, but, the information I needed to reveal was certainly something the CRB wanted to be unsaid. But, when you agree to do the job, you agree to abide by your superiors desired level of communication. Read between the lines: If they don't want you saying something, you can't. The CRB reached the end of it's rope with me when I was relating things that weren't complimentary about their methods and actions.

That's BS. My thinking is that if they don't want me posting stinky poop, don't let there BE stinky poop! Having a system that insulates itself in that manner propagates that behavior!*

I challenge you to read all my posts on the subject and find one item that was wrong.

The members deserve to know what's going on, what policies are in place that are creating the landscape on which they race, and they have a right to have a voice in those matters.

I applaud Josh's efforts, and I know he's working under a close watch. I hope he can see a way to ensure that what information he is allowed to disseminate is done unilaterally.
To the CRB: If he is allowed to speak with one, he must be allowed to say the same thing to all. It's just that simple.

* Further, Mac, you came on and posted "inside information" that you had heard that added information about the CRBs opinion of the iTAC that the ITAC didn't know! WTF is THAT all about!?!?!?! What kind of way to run a business is THAT!?! If one organization has something to say to the other, SAY IT, or examine your self and decide why you can't, or don't want to say it. But telling others "on the side". Hello? That's just BS. I'll add one thing...no CRB member ever read anything about my opinion on a board that wasn't mentioned on a con call.

[GKR_17]

The roll cage question was a fun one.... ...so the owner was told he'd have to remove all of that extra stuff. Had he done so, and had an injury-producing accident, could the club be held liable?

Personal responsibility in this country is at an all time low its seems, but don't open that can of worms. How many cars do we have running now that were required to disable their anit-lock brakes?

[IPRESS]

We have been over this plenty of times.
You guys worked hard and did a great job.
You guys and the CRB got crosswise.
The CRB & the ITAC sort of got in a stalemate.
The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through. Should be optimistic times for the internet IT crowd.


Jake, People will always have info that others don't just because as racers we are around different people. If I hear something and draw an opinion you can take it or leave it. It is just one opinion. I didn't post that I felt the CRB members were getting fed up with how the ITAC was presenting their case, as a knock on the ITAC. I posted it in hopes that you guys could work out a solution. Things were evidently too far gone at that point. Here is a take it or leave it. Six to Eight years is all anybody should serve on a committee. Blend in new people and new ideas with past history. Just one opinion.... could be right or could be wrong. A good talker might convince me tomorrow that committes for life are best....I am easily influenced.
As Rodney Daingerfield said while passing out twentys in Caddyshack, "Keep it Fair, keep it fair!"

[Ron Earp]

The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through. Should be optimistic times for the internet IT crowd.

Actually, I'd suggest just the opposite is true. Used to be all sorts of interest and chatter over new happenings in the ITAC, rules proposals, etc. Not any more. Boards are dead unless we're discussing something other than IT racing.

Look back at the period from 2006-2009 - The Realignment, ITR, new cars classed - many changes happened in IT during that period that I submit would never have occured without the open nature of the ITAC and the exchange of ideas between the ITAC and regular members. Now, it seems times have changed and open two-way transparent communication is not the norm for the ITAC / Member interface. Or, at least it seems that way to me.

Still, Josh's efforts are appreciated. I just hope more ITAC members choose to interact with the regular folks.

[tnord]

i would suggest that not-discussing the possibility of YET ANOTHER round of major changes to the category is a very, very good thing.



Writing things in a public forum is a great way to have things on a public record, where anyone can see them and interpret the same sentence ten thousand different ways, likely in the direction of whatever their personal bias may be.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with you that 3-4 years on a committee is enough.

On communication, I find the Internet to be the best way to stay in touch with IT racers across the country. If you care about IT, you read and post on rr.autox.com, or IT.com. I reach more people, and hear more about competing viewpoints, that way than any other.

Moreover, two of the biggest recent changes to IT -- the process and the addition of ITR -- were Internet based initiatives.

So, I have a hard time with those who think that the internet and communication via it are problematic. Sure, issues come up, but on the whole, the internet has been a positive for the development of IT.

I absolutely do not like the idea that committee work should be protected, etc. This is a club, with members, and they need to know what is going on. I do acknowledge that there needs to be some structure to that communication, and on occasion I and other ITAC members have crossed lines to inappropriate means of communication. But at the core, any attempt to cut members off from information or from the decision making process is very problematic in my view.

And, also, thanks to Josh for taking the lead on trying to come up with a communication method that works.

[JoshS]

Just to make it clear -- while there were a lot of proposed rule changes on our agenda this month, none of them were initiated by the ITAC, they all came in through letters from the membership. As I said earlier to Tom, we discuss every rule change proposal that comes in.

If the proponents of these proposals want to also take the concepts to public forums, they are welcome to do so (as Tom did with the engine mounts.) If that happens, we ITAC members might involve ourselves in public discourse about the merits of the idea. And if we do that, we're doing it as club members and drivers and car builders, not as ITAC members.

That would be a very different idea from taking an idea that comes in from a member as a letter, and then the ITAC post to some forums about that to get member input. The member input process for the club is already laid out -- the advisory committees and the CRB can either ask for member input via Fastrack prior to actually making a rule change proposal, or the CRB can make a proposal and member input comes before the BOD approval phase.

Maybe someday the member input process could involve the internet instead of Fastrack publications and letters, but as of right now, that's the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through.

Like what?

[IPRESS]

Like what?

OH I don't know maybe I was thinking that lately the CRB has opened back up consideration of things involving IT. Seems like some cars were classed or reclassed. Just from outside looking in it seems Josh and his crew have been able to overcome the "stop the presses" stalemate of late fall. I don't know if that is good or bad.


Travis I thought you quit and joined a country club.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OH I don't know maybe I was thinking that lately the CRB has opened back up consideration of things involving IT. Seems like some cars were classed or reclassed. Just from outside looking in it seems Josh and his crew have been able to overcome the "stop the presses" stalemate of late fall. I don't know if that is good or bad.


Using the Process was never a question for cars new to IT. The stalemate hinged on currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

I haven't seen any evidence that they have backed off that. Maybe the current ITAC believes in the concepts.

[Ron Earp]

And really.........You guys had your shot at running things, and did a nice job, but ya'll left, now some other bunch needs to have their chance,

That "some other bunch" is still made up of many of the "old bunch", no pun intended. As I understand it one of the ITAC members has been on there for 15 years.....talk about a poster child for term limits.....

Committees in the SCCA need a couple of changes:

1. Term limits.
2. Committee members MUST be active participants in the racing the committee oversees.

[erlrich]

Committees in the SCCA need a couple of changes:

1. Term limits.
2. Committee members MUST be active participants in the racing the committee oversees.

Agree 100% with both of those :023:

[JeffYoung]

Ditto.

We need to make a rule proposal in that regard. I'll do a letter request to the ITAC and see if I can get them to adopt it as a policy, but it really should be in the GCR or the Bylaws or whatever "controls" the committees.

[IPRESS]

Using the Process was never a question for cars new to IT. The stalemate hinged on currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

I haven't seen any evidence that they have backed off that. Maybe the current ITAC believes in the concepts.

I wasn't talking about the process although it was the flashpoint. My view from afar was that the CRB & the old ITAC had come to a point that working together was not an option. Seems Josh's committee has the luxury of getting a fresh start. No reflection on past committtee members or their stance. As I stated before, I had quite the unhappy moment with the CRB myself one time. I was probably on the wrong side, but that doesn't mean you guys were, most on here think you were right, I think it was a little inbetween.

[Knestis]

I wasn't talking about the process although it was the flashpoint. My view from afar was that the CRB & the old ITAC had come to a point that working together was not an option. Seems Josh's committee has the luxury of getting a fresh start. No reflection on past committtee members or their stance. As I stated before, I had quite the unhappy moment with the CRB myself one time. I was probably on the wrong side, but that doesn't mean you guys were, most on here think you were right, I think it was a little inbetween.

I appreciate you acknowledging that the "old ITAC" had a lot of support for what it was trying to do. Ultimately, I see what went down as a conflict between what we heard the majority of members asking for and what the CRB was willing to do. I dare say that those of us who left the committee came down on what we saw as the members' side. The CRB does its job at the behest of the Board - that handful of people we all elect. That allows them to chase pesky ad hoc committee members back into the shadows but it doe NOT make them member-proof.

Josh is a GREAT consensus builder and he's pragmatic about things - probably the right qualities to unstick the situation - but we're asking for trouble, I think, if we mistake a lack of apparent conflict between the ITAC and CRB as IT being 100% AOK.

K

[jjjanos]

They seem to have broken down the stalemate and have things starting to get better as far as civil CRB / ITAC stuff goes.

Well that's a no-brainer. German-French relations improved too with the move of the government seat from Paris to Vichy.

"A running theme during all of the discussions above was about the philosophy of IT and its place in the whole club racing program, with input from our CRB liaisons, of course. We discussed who our members are, who we want our members to be, etc"

I.e. If the ITAC does exactly what the CRB wants, there is no conflict. I question the competence of the CRB to discuss ANYTHING related to the philosophy of IT, who races IT and what IT racers want. They may be experts in where they want IT to fit into the entire program, but that simply means that IT is going to get screwed to save the FUBAR situation they have made of National racing and the Runoffs.




The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through. Should be optimistic times for the internet IT crowd.

Ummm, I see very little to nothing to suggest this. The mess of ITB weights/specifications has been kicked to the curb and the CRB has imposed a hare-brained, scattershot method of car classification/correction on the category.

The MR2 situation remains resolved incorrectly; there's an overdog in ITB; both situations are already hurting car counts in at least one series and the CRB has officially shut the door to corrections. Based on their interpretation of the rules, the MR2 weight issue is a closed issue.

[Ron Earp]

1. Term limits.
2. Committee members MUST be active participants in the racing the committee oversees.

One more:

3. Committee members must recuse themselves from voting on an issue that would directly affect the IT class they race in with respect to competition within that class - i.e., mainly car classifications.

This would do a couple of things, keep the member honest and insure the ITAC is populated evenly from all IT classes so it doesn't get paralyzed on a particular class/vote.

[gran racing]

Josh - this is what drives me nuts about our current situation. As more and more cars are classes using the new measuring stick, the previously classed cars are going to suffer more and more.


currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

This needs to be addressed for all IT classes and a push needs to come from the ITAC, and the BOD hopefully will step in. The good news is that IT is not the only category experiencing issues in how things are being handled by the CRB. Nice, real nice.

[Knestis]

One more:

3. Committee members must recuse themselves from voting on an issue that would directly affect the IT class they race in with respect to competition within that class - i.e., mainly car classifications.

This would do a couple of things, keep the member honest and insure the ITAC is populated evenly from all IT classes so it doesn't get paralyzed on a particular class/vote.

You mean both ITAC and CRB members of course, but particularly the latter - I hope. Right now, the default in the CRB is that members pretty much manage decisions in the categories they understand. That means a really huge concentration of power on a couple of people.

Looking back, my greatest "Oh, crap" realization - stoopid after 20+ years doing this - was that the CRB does NOT make decisions as a body, where category-specific issues are concerned. At least not in the way I pictured in my naiave little head...

K

[JeffYoung]

I like the CRB guys, but I do not have a clear picture as to how their decisions are made either. I assume it is a vote, but I also get the feeling (possibly wrong) that the liasion to a particular committee really can set the tone for the vote (meaning influence it).

[lateapex911]

I like the CRB guys, but I do not have a clear picture as to how their decisions are made either. I assume it is a vote, but I also get the feeling (possibly wrong) that the liasion to a particular committee really can set the tone for the vote (meaning influence it).


I was like Kirk. When the ITAC gets something, we'd debate it as a committee. Certain things I knew little of I just went with the 'expert'. In hindsight, I wish I had been more mercurial about that. However the now lost (I assume) "confidence vote" aspect of the Process was an awesome response to that issue. I assumed the CRB did the same thing, in that the whole committee hears the case and the recommendation and votes. When I was told that a CRB member was completely unfamiliar with the Process...which had been in use for years, it dawned on me that things were far from what I had assumed.

It became clear that the ITAC had developed practices and procedures that were of a higher standard than the CrB was using, and was comfortable with. That's sad.

[Chip42]

I just sent a letter regarding a proposed rules change from the May fastrack and in doing so I noticed that almost the entire ITAC is based in the Southeast, Josh being the exception way out in Cali.

should we not have an ITAC member from every regional championship / division? NARRC / MARRS / SARRC / etc?

[JoshS]

I just sent a letter regarding a proposed rules change from the May fastrack and in doing so I noticed that almost the entire ITAC is based in the Southeast, Josh being the exception way out in Cali.

should we not have an ITAC member from every regional championship / division? NARRC / MARRS / SARRC / etc?

We have Gary Semerdjian from SoCal as well as me (from NorCal).

Your proposal would be great, but just like the idea of term limits, these things only work if there are enough interested parties to fill the slots. We don't get very many resumes, we definitely don't get one from each location.

[tnord]

Travis I thought you quit and joined a country club.

well, i golf 2x/week and i am actually looking at a country club....and no racing thus far this year. i am headed back to the dyno this weekend though. :eclipsee_steering:

[JoshS]

The next ITAC meeting is coming up Monday, May 24, 2010.

The agenda covers:
3 topics on the IT Prep allowances (update/backdate, ABS, and crank-triggered ignition systems)
3 new listing requests
2 spec lines - data errors
12 spec lines - weight adjustments or reclass requests

I don't think it will be possible to get through all of these, but I hope we make good progress! I will summarize the results later next week and as always, please contact me directly if you have anything you'd like to discuss in more detail.

[quadzjr]

that is alot, hopefully some of it is cut and dry errors. Intereted in why crank trigger systems is even for discussion is beyond me.

[Marcus Miller]

that is alot, hopefully some of it is cut and dry errors. Intereted in why crank trigger systems is even for discussion is beyond me.

Duh, its cause the SCCA is run by Honda!
The Itac all got new S2K's... :happy204:
:p :026:

M

[Chip42]

12 spec lines - weight adjustments or reclass requests

guilty - in part. the hondas are a mess. I'm sure some are volvos and dodges as per usual. I just started going through it all and the ITA/B line is not even blurry - it's just a grey region in many cases.

thanks to the ITAC for looking each of these through. - if I can help, add info, etc... please let me know. there's a lot more I see that needs cleaning and since member input is the starting point, I'm sending in what I find from what I know - I've got a newborn so I don't sleep anymore...

[JeffYoung]

No new S2k here....

Chip, the "out for member comment" on the crankfire rule came about this way. I've got a personal interest in it, so I may abstain from a vote, although I am opposed to it. Here's what I can tell you about the situation based solely on my opinion. I'd love to get you and others to comment on the situation. It's actually a more fundamental issue than it first appears.

The deal basically is that older distributor based (and some non-distributor) EFI systems do not work well with aftermarket ECUs. Essentially, the distributor based signal telling the ECU "where" the cam/crank are is weak -- much weaker and far less accurate than a cam or crank position sensor.

I spent a lot of time and money getting my distributor to work reliably with an aftermarket ECU. With a Haltech, I just could never get it right; with MSII, it works, although there is still signal drop out at lower RPMs. I'm working on boosting that signal -- all legal since it is distributor "guts" -- but the bottom line is it takes work.

The "easy" fix would be to allow the signal to come from the crank or a CPS. And that is less of a change to the rules than it might first appear. Basically, right now, your crank pulley is free, so you can load that sucker up with rare earth magnets and get it all setup to send a precise signal to the ECU....if you were allowed to add a pickup/sensor.

Now, the rule does say something like "sensors may be replaced" but it doesn't say moved. This particular discussiion came from a couple of letters asking if the position sensor inside the distributor that senses cam/crank location could be moved to the crank.

The ITAC's answer is no.

After spending a lot of time on this issue I agree. This is more than just moving a water temp or air temp sensor -- allowing pickup at the crank IS a peformance advantage and, if you work through it you can make the distributor based pick up work.

But that leads to the fundamental issue here -- should we allow "open" sensors to allow older EFI cars the same advantages as new? Note this was already done -- a mistake in my view -- for some cars (notably the Miata) to allow the addition of a MAP to make it work with some systems.

This opened up a can of worms I think. Open sensors would allow me to move my batch fired, distributor based system to running a full sequential setup off the crank. With a more accurate signal.

But that is the fundamental core issue I think: do we allow open sensors or not?

Moreover, the "rule" as sent out for comment goes even farther and would allow carb cars crankfire, (Electromotive has such a system) that would really clean up timing and spark.

My vote is no, but I'd love to hear what membership thinks although I think this one may have crossed the line over a "core IT philosophy" that we simply should not allow despite member opinion.

Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.

[quadzjr]

I for one are against them. This will only provide an performance advantage that, if apporved would increase the money required to make a 10/10ths car. I mean some car this will help tremendously, others not so much. But, this is "improved" touring. Not "super" touring, or even worst "production". haha..

A question to the masses, is there any president to revoke a rule that has already been adopted? Yeah most rules that don't make sense, to me, now if revoked would decrease the peformace advantages of some. whcih I woudl imagine would be met with alot of resisitnace. I am more of the idea that you choose your dog in the race and deal with what comes with it.

Alot of allowing open sensors will allow people with the means to do so take advantage of what others can't afford.

[lawtonglenn]

...is there any precedent to revoke a rule that has already been adopted? ...


In 1933, the state conventions ratified the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed Amendment XVIII. Federal Prohibitionary laws were then repealed. The amendment was fully ratified on December 5, 1933. Some States, however, continued Prohibition within their jurisdictions. Almost two-thirds of all states adopted some form of local option which enabled residents in political subdivisions to vote for or against local Prohibition; therefore, for a time, 38% of Americans lived in areas with Prohibition. By 1966, however, all states had fully repealed their state-level Prohibition laws, with Mississippi the last state to do so.

[lawtonglenn]

;)

[JeffYoung]

If I recall correctly, and I may have the terminology wrong, but either there were express rules allowing remote reservoir shocks and piston coatings, or they were officially endorsed as legal by the CRB. That rule/endorsement was then rescinded.

I'm not sure I'm in favor of changing any existing rules, but I certainly agree that the fact it is "hard" to make a distributor based system work with a new aftermarket ECU is not enough reason to change the rule.

Me (and my wallet) are proof that it can be done. If you don't want the aftermarket ECU, you don't have to spend the $$$.

[Charlie Broring]

A Pertronics Igniter ($60) will fit into most distributors and trigger a Megasquirt ECU nicely. There is no "need" for a crank trigger setup.

We never should let the ECU Gennie out of the bottle . Ecu allowances could have been done on a case by case basis and we wouldn't be have this discussion now.

[JeffYoung]

Actually, not exactly. We tried that with a Pertronix in a Mallory distributor to see what it did. Still had low rpm signal drop out. YOu could see it on the oscilloscope.

Something about low RPM creates bad signal strength. It clears up (at least on my car) around 2,000 RPM so it doesn't (at this point) affect raceability, but it is still annoying.

Still opposed to the change though.

[quadzjr]

If you don't want the aftermarket ECU, you don't have to spend the $$$.

And in doing so within the current ruleset you are giving up a possible advantage. That other competitors with the money to do will.

[GKR_17]

I had an optical trigger (from Crane Cams) in the distributor on my ITB BMW 15 years ago. No doubt the technology has improved since then. No crank trigger is a 'wart', no change to the rule is needed.

[Terry Hanushek]

Crankfire Ignition History (http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11323)

Is this where you want to go?

[Ron Earp]

Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.

What difference do the letters make? They were solidly for the motor mount allowance but had no effect, the allowance was still turned down.

Hell yes I'm against it. As we know systems can be made to work as is.

The argument for allowance is "well, the newer cars have crank sensing systems and I should be allowed to have what newer cars in the class have to level the field". Too bad. You choose your car to race, you live with it, warts and all.

I'd like to race a fuel injected car with disc brakes. If I would like to do it badly enough I'll get a newer car, not ask for a rules change.

[spawpoet]

I'd like to race a fuel injected car with disc brakes.

That allowance will be submitted for member input next month :happy204:. Crank fire would be great on our dinosaur cars. Like you pointed out, so would FI, and something more than Flintstone style brakes, but we kinda should try to keep this Genie as close to in the bottle as we can. This is a slippery slope defined. Count me as against.

[JoshS]

What difference do the letters make? They were solidly for the motor mount allowance but had no effect, the allowance was still turned down.

I personally am hoping the letters discuss pros and cons with their opinions. I actually think we made a mistake with proposing a specific wording with the engine mount request for input. We just got a lot of "yes" but other than the count of letters, got little actual input. The softer question with ignitions will hopefully elicit some more thoughtful feedback.

It's just input. It's not a public vote. The input needs to sway the committee one way or the other.

[RSTPerformance]

We have Gary Semerdjian from SoCal as well as me (from NorCal).

Your proposal would be great, but just like the idea of term limits, these things only work if there are enough interested parties to fill the slots. We don't get very many resumes, we definitely don't get one from each location.


Josh... Just coght up on a little reading in the forums, had to lol... Why would anyone want to be on the ITAC? The CRB hasn't changed yet has it? Please be sure to let me know when it does so I can reconsider volunteering time again to the business we call a club!

Also why are you even considering the 12 reclassifications or adjustments? Are they on newly classed cars? It's still illigal to change anything else correct?

Also to be clear for everyone where should we send e-mails to in NOT supporting IT to become even more a production class.

Thanks;

Raymond

[JoshS]

Why would anyone want to be on the ITAC?

I don't remember :rolleyes:


Also why are you even considering the 12 reclassifications or adjustments? Are they on newly classed cars? It's still illigal to change anything else correct?

They are on the agenda because we received letters. The rules have not changed, weights cannot be changed except in the case of an error (and please don't make me define it again!) We haven't yet evaluated whether or not these 12 qualify as errors or not ... we'll do that on the call.


Also to be clear for everyone where should we send e-mails to in NOT supporting IT to become even more a production class.

As it says in Fastrack, all letters (and resumes!) should be submitted via crbscca.com.

[lateapex911]

Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.

Based on the ITAC and the CRBs response to the 40 nearly unanimous "for" letters on the engine mount request, it's not a surprise that people feel it's pointless to write a letter.

Simply, if the CRB says, "Here's a new rule as we're thinking about writing it, do you support it?" and 40 people read it, think about it, and support it, it boggles the mind how that can be ignored. I know some people suggested edits, or adjustments, others were fine with what they read.

But, why would the question even be asked if the committee wasn't supportive of the idea? After all, the committee voted supported it, or there's no point to ask in the first place. So, the committee supports the concept, 40 responders LOVE the idea, yet, somehow, that was ignored. It makes no sense at all. And it whacks at the confidence of the members in their leaders. What's doubling perplexing in this case is that not one but BOTH committees blew it.

I'll write in and say "no" but I can tell you I'm not going to spend the hours I used to crafting logical and passionate responses...it's obvious that at this point, it probably doesn't matter.

[JoshS]

Based on the ITAC and the CRBs response to the 40 nearly unanimous "for" letters on the engine mount request, it's not a surprise that people feel it's pointless to write a letter.

It probably has more to do with the fact that there's only been 1 business day since Fastrack was published. Business days are important because the ITAC doesn't see the feedback the moment you submit, the national office dispatches each letter to the board or committee that needs to see it.

[Ron Earp]

It's just input. It's not a public vote. The input needs to sway the committee one way or the other.

Forty people wrote in in support of the motor mount change. Forty is a good number of people and I'm told the most ever that has written in support of anything proposed. But, apparently that response couldn't sway the committee to vote for the change. So what is a member to think? Input works? It clearly does not work.



But, why would the question even be asked if the committee wasn't supportive of the idea? After all, the committee voted supported it, or there's no point to ask in the first place.


Apparently the ITAC didn't support it. Reading on the brown board the ITAC returned a hung vote, which recommends nothing to the CRB.





I'll write in and say "no" but I can tell you I'm not going to spend the hours I used to crafting logical and passionate responses...it's obvious that at this point, it probably doesn't matter.

Exactly. Give as you get.

-------------
RE: Crank fire igintion

Ron Earp thinks the rule is adequate as written.

Ron Earp
SCCA #345404

------------
And in the next FastTrack we'll read that crankfire ignition is wide open for IT cars.

[Chip42]

No new S2k here....
Chip,...
Current letters on this are solidly against, although I think there are only 5-6 or so of them.

Jeff, I don't think you were responding to my post, as I only mentioned having added a few honda error classification letters. having said that, the issue is pretty well understood on this end, but that's a good summary for anyone who isn't up on it. I deal with hondas and toyotas. the former would love to see the change, even the newer ones have a rather odd crank signal but the older, belt-driven cam-driven distributor bodies do weird things. on the MR2s it doesn't matter because the limiting issue is excess airflow, not ignition and fuel timing. it would make setup easier but it's not the secret to the other 25% gains we're expected to make.

but, WRT crank trigger,s I put my letter in on friday, #1476.


I am opposed to the allowance of crank fired ignition in IT. The allowance will add costs, yield unpredictable power gains unbalancing the IT field, and, I feel, violates the intent statement in the ITCS regarding stock basis.

No competitor is forced to run a specific car. If the stock ignition design is inadequate or sufficient pickups do not exist to permit the desired computer modifications, so be it. That is the basis the car chosen by the racer. The current distributor rules allow significant and sufficient, if imperfect, modifications to the needed signals.

While I feel that the club should endeavor to classify all cars equitably and fairly based on real world gains and abilities, so as to mitigate the imbalance of gains between models and years under allowed modifications, I do not feel the correct means to this end is by allowing upgrades to the benefit of all. It would only further widen any existing gaps in power potential while moving the class further from its roots, at the expense of its entrants.

[JeffYoung]

Chip, actually I was responding to your post. It was a good question -- the history of this important.

The post someone put up about how crankfire came to be in Prod is illuminating. Basically the same justifications.

THIS -- no washer bottles -- is (in my view) the "road to Prod."

[erlrich]

What difference do the letters make? They were solidly for the motor mount allowance but had no effect, the allowance was still turned down.


^ this...I've written my last letter/email/whatever to the ITAC/CRB/BoD; why waste your time/breath when they're just going to do what they want anyway?

[quadzjr]

^ this...I've written my last letter/email/whatever to the ITAC/CRB/BoD; why waste your time/breath when they're just going to do what they want anyway?

Beacause this is your only official voice in the current system. If you don't like it stand up to try to change it. Though you may feel it is a waste of time, and it may be, but you can't complain post decision like people that hold a similiar belief about goverment elections and don't vote as they see it as a waste of time, then complain afterwards about the result :shrug:

[JeffYoung]

Earl, I personally wish you guys would continue to write in. We do read the letters, and they do matter. They just didn't carry the day on engine mounts.

Please don't stop voicing your opinion about IT, and the rules. With the new system it only takes a few minutes.

I will tell you that on engine mounts, the CRB was greatly impressed by the number of responses and -- speaking for myself only -- I think nearly overruled our recommendation/deadlock/whatever it was as a result.

I know things aren't going to everyone's liking right now, but keep the letters coming. They validate a critical part of what Kirk, Andy, Jake, Scott, etc. believed in -- that internet based member input is crucial to figuring out where the class should go.


^ this...I've written my last letter/email/whatever to the ITAC/CRB/BoD; why waste your time/breath when they're just going to do what they want anyway?

[erlrich]

Beacause this is your only official voice in the current system. If you don't like it stand up to try to change it. Though you may feel it is a waste of time, and it may be, but you can't complain post decision like people that hold a similiar belief about goverment elections and don't vote as they see it as a waste of time, then complain afterwards about the result :shrug:

You're absolutely right, and that's about the only reason I vote in elections - so I feel like I have the right to bitch about the government :D

With respect to the SCCA, I'm done voting (i.e. writing) and bitching about it - from now on I'll just be like the majority of racers an shut up and do what I'm told. If/when it gets to the point that I think it's more trouble than it's worth, I'll go race somewhere else...or find a new hobby. :shrug:

[Ron Earp]

With respect to the SCCA, I'm done voting (i.e. writing) and bitching about it - from now on I'll just be like the majority of racers an shut up and do what I'm told. I :shrug:

Keep your head down and eat the grass.

I think many of us are frustrated with a system that doesn't appear to be following what members want or desire. But what is even more frustrating is that we're not discussing how we can fix the system, instead we're discussing to whether or not to continue to send letters into a broken system.

I assume the ITAC chairman sees the frustration that the IT racers are experiencing and agrees that the system is not ideal, but, I'm not hearing/reading that from the ITAC. What I'm understanding from the ITAC is to "keep on keeping on", have faith, and maybe things will change, and, maybe next time things might come out better. Maybe.

I just don't feel that the direction on the ITAC is all that strong, at least, it isn't as strong as it used to be with the outgoing ITAC. On the other hand, communication isn't what it used to be with the outgoing ITAC so maybe there is a heading for the ITAC the general membership just doesn't know about it.

[JeffYoung]

Continuing to send letters will help fix the system.

People listened. We may not have gotten what the "pro-Process" folks wanted, but higher ups did listen to the support for Jake/Kirk/Scott/Andy and there is (in my view) a new attitude about the ITAC/CRB relationship.

We had a lot of sometimes momentus change the last few years, all good in my view. Maybe a period of cooling off is needed, and that might appear directionless.

I do think the next "big step" for us is to figure out what we want the category to look like overall. To me, I think it is:

a. A category using an objective formula to set weights, and we need to convince the CRB that things like displacement or looking at cars with similar architecture are just POOMAs taht we need to avoid.

b. Define IT core philosophies. Allow membership significant leeway in rule changes that do not affect them (think water bottle, motor mounts, etc.). Draw hard and fast line with proposed changes that do.

[Knestis]

So the next "big step" will get us all to the place where the ITAC THOUGHT IT WAS 12 months ago...?

Against all of the same forces (people, processes, culture, procedural rules) that have been in place for ages...?

<sigh>

K

[JeffYoung]

Well, the fact of the matter is, like it or not, we weren't there. Whether it was miscommunication or something else.

And I think we all knew we were not 100% locked down with the Process. We knew there was an issue as to how to apply it to already classed cars, and whether we even could.

So while we were close, we were never 100% there. I understand what lead to the resignations -- and I came close to doing it myself. But I stayed because I do think there is a real chance we still push this one over the top.

[lateapex911]

Apparently the ITAC didn't support it. Reading on the brown board the ITAC returned a hung vote, which recommends nothing to the CRB.



Actually Ron, I was there for part of it. According to the notes I took on the con call, the ITAC discussed it, and the majority was for opening the rule up, and voted to ask for member approval. The CRB reminded us that a new rule needed to go out for member input. If it hadn't this would have been done, and alternate mounts would have been legal....

Then, a huge response, essentially unanimous in support came in.

Then, the ITAC, ignored it's previous position, ignored the clear and obvious one sided response, and sent a 'no decision" up the line, asking their bosses to decide.

I can tell you this, if Kirk had been on the con call that decided that, you'd have heard an earful, even if he didn't like the idea of alternate mounts! That's no way to run a committee....

Then, and this is rich, the CRB, knowing all that, decided to say "no".
(If the CRB thinks it was 'the right thing to do, to support the ITAC" as they have been given grief lately over NOT supporting the ITAC, I will remind them, yet again, it's not the ITAC that's getting no support, it's the wishes of the members. THAT is why we all resigned....the CRB was ignoring what we all KNOW the members want. It's time for them to pull their heads from the sand if they can not see that.)


Seriously? The ITAC changed it's mind AFTER hearing that the entire membership supported the idea? How ridiculous does it make the committees look in the eyes of the members!?

Josh, I'm sorry, you simply can not tell me that people are going to have the same faith in the leadership to listen and consider their input...it's not about dates/weekends, it's about consistency, and logic...and Earls point is not unique.

Jeff, I absolutely agree with your basic position...and I'm really glad you're fighting the good fight...so don't take what I say as as an arrow aimed at you, but... I think we WERE there, until capricious decision making on the CRB decided otherwise. When Bob Dowie, after supporting and being complicit with the Process, which used stock horsepower as it's cornerstone (while having 'modules' available to use when there were known issues with stock hp) said, on the con call before I resigned, "I have no faith in any system that uses stock hp as it's base, and I can't support it", I just about flipped. That's a fundemental change in the leaders voiced position on the cornerstone of the categories classification process.

That the CRB decides, after 5 years of doing things a certain way, that NOW, they don't like it....that's capricious, and I wish I was given a good explanation as to why. Yes, yes, " GCR/rules don't allow it" is the one that gets trotted out, but that's red herring, because they were fine with it for 5 years! I submit somebody got uncomfortable with certain suggestions, and decided to lock down the whole deal, claiming "The GCR says so". After being a party to 5 years of that activity strikes me as a cover.

Members see that kind of inconsistency, they see the "Unanimous support" that gets rejected...of COURSE they think they system is busted, and obviously writing in hasn't fixed it. Tell me, what WILL fix it?

[dickita15]

With respect to the SCCA, I'm done voting (i.e. writing) and bitching about it - from now on I'll just be like the majority of racers an shut up and do what I'm told. If/when it gets to the point that I think it's more trouble than it's worth, I'll go race somewhere else...or find a new hobby. :shrug:

Maybe I a Pollyanna but when I read the following from fastrack I think that the CRB will bring this back to the ITAC for more discussion. There is no real rush as with the current rules season limitations this would not go before the BOD until November. I suspect this is not the end of it.

“The ITAC and the CRB are engaged in discussions concerning IT philosophy and the future of the category. The motor mount issue will remain as part of these discussions as will other issues such as crank fired ignitions. Members will be asked for their input on specific items and more general questions about whether members want the class to drift toward Production, or remain as a much more restricted category.”

Given this I think it would be shortsighted to stop offering input when requested.

[JeffYoung]

Jake, no problem at all. This should all be discussed.

I do think we are overstating the stituation though if we say "we were there" with the Process. I don't think we were.

I see it as two "prongs:"

1. Finalizing the process itself. Here we were very close. Stock hp, power multiplier, FWD subtractor, torque mod, and others , all worked out. In fact, basically all we had left to do was put it down on paper and then (I had hoped) publish it.

On this point, I agree my perception was there was a CRB "about face" that on, in particular, the use of (a) stock hp and (b) "what we know" from dyno sheets. All of sudden, that stuff became problematic when it wasn't before.

2. Prong 2 was far less developed, and turned on whether we were going to use the Process on ALL of the 300 some cars in the ITCs, or pick and choose, or "what." We knew the class bogeys and popular cars had been processed, and that new cars would be as well. What remained open was what to do with the rest.

Some wanted to process all cars.

Some wanted to process cars just based on request.

Some wanted to put in "suspension" older, problematic cars until such time as someone requested that they be relisted (Josh's idea, a good one).

We eventually decided, if I recall correctly, to do "all" of ITB as test case and then the shit hit the fan.

[tom91ita]

Continuing to send letters will help fix the system.

People listened. We may not have gotten what the "pro-Process" folks wanted, but higher ups did listen to the support for Jake/Kirk/Scott/Andy and there is (in my view) a new attitude about the ITAC/CRB relationship.

We had a lot of sometimes momentus change the last few years, all good in my view. Maybe a period of cooling off is needed, and that might appear directionless.

I do think the next "big step" for us is to figure out what we want the category to look like overall. To me, I think it is:

a. A category using an objective formula to set weights, and we need to convince the CRB that things like displacement or looking at cars with similar architecture are just POOMAs taht we need to avoid.

b. Define IT core philosophies. Allow membership significant leeway in rule changes that do not affect them (think water bottle, motor mounts, etc.). Draw hard and fast line with proposed changes that do.

i like what you have laid out. just one question, who are the higher ups? CRB or BOD?

[JeffYoung]

Both.

I embarassingly enough didn't know this even when I joined the ITAC.

"Chain of command" goes: ITAC to the CRB to the BOD.

[lateapex911]

Ah, Jeff, I love ya man, but you missed one. HERE'S the real chart.

MEMBERS
l
BoD
l
CRB
l
ITAC

;)

As an ITAC guy, I felt it was my job to get into the members heads and figure out what they wanted, and think about how to distill that within the framework of the category. Then it was working to get that resolved in the ITAC, and communicated up to the CRB. At times, if I felt the message from the members wasn't transferring up the line to the BoD, I'd call my BoD guy. But, in the end all committees answer to the member.

We're on the same page on the Process, and the refined and documented version V2 WAS actually set to paper, but it gave the CRB bad feelings, because, as Chris Albin put it, it lacked "wiggle room". So we were told we could NOT use it on existing listings, but we could use it on NEW listings, or, as the CRB told us, "Use anything you want, or make it up, just make sure it makes sense", when it came to new listings. Existing listings were to use Process V1. For those just tuning in, V2 of the Process made minor tweaks to certain aspects, and didn't allow for "an extra 50 because we think that engine will need it", without bringing evidence and getting a committee confidence vote on that 'engine needs it" part, as well as very minor tweaks in the calculation of FWD breaks.*

Our SOP practice had been to process based on member request, and to do similar cars at the same time. So if model Q got adjusted, the same car with a different brand got a change as well. And I remembered we decided to study ITB and try to figure out some odd stuff there, while continuing to adjust the easy cases that were requested, and would not be affected by any Process changes that might come into play later. (the torque modifier was a delay, for example, but cars that were clearly not going to be affected were processed)

*Again, for those just tuning in, I should mention one other aspect. Peter Keane ItAC member, then CRB member, now ITAC member again) swears there was a 'deal' to allow 16V cars into ITB, but ONLY if they got a 30% factor. I can't recall any such "deal". BUT, in an early version of the Process, 16V DOHC cars DID get higher factors....in ALL classes, not just ITB. There is NO documentation that I can find that supports Peters assertion. However, that same document had, as a flow chart block, a "Check for sanity/if the numbers make sense" step. As we did more cars, it became obvious that we weren't using the 30% factor on 16V cars and it was changed to 25% as SOP. The early 16V cars in ITA ARE factored higher, but, those were based on empirical evidence of prepped power. So, in the end, the V2 also, in the CRBs eyes, was going to change the ITB landscape, because they felt that cars would be classed at 25% in ITB (only!) wrongly.

An example is the MR2, which was moved to ITB from ITA. I made a math error and we put it in at the wrong weight, but the CRB refuses to correct the error because of the legacy "deal" and they feel it's the 'right weight".

[Ron Earp]

Actually Ron, I was there for part of it. According to the notes I took on the con call, the ITAC discussed it, and the majority was for opening the rule up, and voted to ask for member approval. The CRB reminded us that a new rule needed to go out for member input. If it hadn't this would have been done, and alternate mounts would have been legal....

Then, a huge response, essentially unanimous in support came in.

Then, the ITAC, ignored it's previous position, ignored the clear and obvious one sided response, and sent a 'no decision" up the line, asking their bosses to decide.


What the hell?? So the ITAC asked for member input, as requested, the member input is positive, and then the ITAC can't make a decision and the request is turned away.

So alternative mounts would have been legal had member input NOT been solicited and considered? Yeah, makes you want to write a lot of letters to the ITAC. Now I'm not sure to write a letter FOR crank fire ignitions, or AGAINST crank fire ignitions because I'm not sure what input produces a given output.

If that isn't just damn broken I don't know what broken means. How do we fix this mess?

[JoshS]

What the hell?? So the ITAC asked for member input, as requested, the member input is positive, and then the ITAC can't make a decision and the request is turned away.

So alternative mounts would have been legal had member input NOT been solicited and considered? Yeah, make you want to write a lot of letters to the ITAC.

No, where did you get that idea? The committee was split, which is WHY we asked for member input. The member input came back and wasn't enough to change anyone's mind, so, the committee remained split. As there is (appropriately) a bigger hurdle to make a change than there is to maintain the status quo, the status quo wins.

[Ron Earp]

No, where did you get that idea?



Got it from Jake. Read his post. Here:


Actually Ron, I was there for part of it. According to the notes I took on the con call, the ITAC discussed it, and the majority was for opening the rule up, and voted to ask for member approval. The CRB reminded us that a new rule needed to go out for member input. If it hadn't this would have been done, and alternate mounts would have been legal...

[JoshS]

Well, Jake has the notes from that meeting, he was the secretary. But my recollection is that we never even voted on the specific rule recommendation. But we probably wouldn't have had the votes necessary to recommend the change. What we DID vote on was whether or not to go out for member input. That's not as high a bar to cross as it is to recommend an actual change, and we had enough support to do that.

[JeffYoung]

I recall the same as Jake. The first vote on mounts was in favor, when I think Kirk and Andy were still on the ITAC.

[seckerich]

The reality here is that less than 15 people dictate what we as drivers get. Between the ITAC and those on the CRB that get involved, we get what they decree. You were asked for input on something most had made their mind up on. The fact you wanted it was irrelevant, because you did not change their minds. Tilting windmills to think you will change it under the current system. CRB should have to run for election, not selection. ITAC needs term limits to get rid of "log chain" mentality. To be clear that is directed at Lee Graser and his antiquated BS. I respect Josh big time for keeping us informed, but we are just being informed the scraps we are allowed to have. Until you are all ready to change that the vote or any other memories of meetings are irrelevant.

[Ron Earp]

The reality here is that less than 15 people dictate what we as drivers get. Between the ITAC and those on the CRB that get involved, we get what they decree. CRB should have to run for election, not selection. ITAC needs term limits to get rid of "log chain" mentality. To be clear that is directed at Lee Graser and his antiquated BS. I respect Josh big time for keeping us informed, but we are just being informed the scraps we are allowed to have. Until you are all ready to change that the vote or any other memories of meetings are irrelevant.

Based on my observations there is a lot of truth in what Steve writes. I don't think this system will ever function efficiently and with the driver's best interest until it is completely changed, personnel and all.

[Knestis]

I recall the same as Jake. The first vote on mounts was in favor, when I think Kirk and Andy were still on the ITAC.

FWIW, I don't believe I was ever involved in any substantial conversation about engine mounts. We talked about them in general terms but I don't *think* i was on the call when the decision was made to put it out for input.

Also, while opinions on this may differ, I don't interpret "soliciting input" as collecting votes - at least not in this context. I very much viewed my role while on the ITAC as being a bastion against creep. If 100 IT drivers wrote in enthusiastically supporting something that I thought was contrary to contemporary interpretations of the purpose and first principles of the category, I would vote equally enthusiastically against it.

That said, I support alternate engine and gearbox mounts, without reservation. They don't do anything that stayrods don't already do - which is to me the strongest argument FOR the new allowance, rather than against. The counter argument makes no damned sense at all... In addition, aftermarket or home-made engine mounts are completely consistent with a whole ton of other allowances that have been codified into the rules for ages.

But you know what? It's another one of those cases where we're arguing about the symptom rather than the disease. I have a lot of respect for Josh. He's a smart dude and I can picture that it would be easy to work for him - which is saying a lot with me. However, Josh, I'm afraid that you're hoping the actual problems will change, without anything substantial enough to CHANGE THEM being done.

I understand from Dick P. that a couple of procedural considerations are in the works, such requiring that at least CRB liaison the ITAC (and other ad hocs) not be a category "expert," heavily invested in decisions. This would theoretically have the result that "they might be more open minded to the [ad hoc's] positions and less likely to substitute their own opinion for that of the committee when discussing items with the CRB."

That actually addresses the topic of my dissertation - the idea of "transformation of intentions," whereby policy actors at the point of information hand-off (or resource control decisions) steer decisions their way. It's a start and I'm cautiously optimistic but with all of the same players involved, I fear it's not enough to counter some powerful organizational forces.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I never thought I would say this but I think I am going to submit a resume for the CRB.

[Ron Earp]

The member input came back and wasn't enough to change anyone's mind, so, the committee remained split. As there is (appropriately) a bigger hurdle to make a change than there is to maintain the status quo, the status quo wins.


I just read that again and now I'm scairt. Kirk and Steve probably already got it.

So the ITAC had made a decision and the member input, which was the largest ever received to date on a topic, was not able to sway the committee's decision. What would it take to sway the committee? 100 letters? 500 letters? 1000 letters? My guess is it doesn't matter - the ITAC is going to do what IT wants to do, regardless of member input. A sad state of affairs.

[Knestis]

The reality here is that less than 15 people dictate what we as drivers get. ...

My huge "ah ha!" last spring was that your number is wildly optimistic, Steve. Ultimately, i think that the number is more like four where IT is concerned.

ITAC members - Is it actually the case that Peter K is your liaison?

K

EDIT - "Spring" is giving myself too much credit. While I *should* have figured it out then, I didn't actually get it until after I resigned, this past fall.

[JeffYoung]

While elections bring a whole host of different problems, I think they are the way to go.

ITAC and CRB, or at least hte CRB, should be elected. All advisory committees should have a term limits. Continuity and finding folks to do this are an issue, but at the same time turnover -- especially to reflect current member demographics -- is important.

Kirk, I don't think anyone thinks that soliciting member input is the same as votes (and not digging at you). I fully believe that if we got 50 letters asking for alternate cams, everyone on the current ITAC, just like with the "old' ITAC, would vote no. IT first principles and all that.

As a fairly new guy to IT and the SCCA, the desire for closed door decision making and lobbying was a bit of a shock to me even though I probably should have expected it.

THAT part of the culture -- the idea that leadership knows better than members, and that decisions should be made in private because allowing folks to know how the sausage is made is bad -- needs to change.

[Knestis]

I never thought I would say this but I think I am going to submit a resume for the CRB.

I'll make sure my Director knows that I encourage him to consider and support your bid, and will tell everyone in the division the same thing.

K

[JeffYoung]

No. Peter is actually on the ITAC. Jim Wheeler and Bob Dowie appear on calls (like right now) for the CRB.


My huge "ah ha!" last spring was that your number is wildly optimistic, Steve. Ultimately, i think that the number is more like four where IT is concerned.

ITAC members - Is it actually the case that Peter K is your liaison?

K

[lateapex911]

With regards to the engine mount issue Josh, it was discussed in committee, and the advantages, drawbacks, and issues were gone over. One item was a concern about creating wording that would be effective and not create unintended consequences. The question was posed to the committee: "Assuming such wording can be created, and i think that is a safe assumption, would this committee support the concept of alternative mounts?".

The committee was polled, and there was a majority in favor. Therefor, wording was created, and the item went out for member feedback.

Pure logic determined the course of action: if the committee would NOT consider it even IF the wording could be created, there would be no point in wasting time creating the wording, and it would be ridiculous to put it out for member comment. If we wouldn't consider it, why bother asking.
Further, had Any OR I remained on board, it would have passed the second vote, 5 to 3, or 6 to 2. (I'm betting the vote was: You: yes, Jeff: yes. Peter: yes, Lee: NO, Les NO, New guy #1 no. .......I'm not sure about Bob Thornton and new guy #2, but obviously they split) So remove two new guys, and insert myself and Andy and it's a whole different picture.

The failure here was that the ITACs original stance on the issue was allowed to be flushed, and the vote was taken again. I am confident that no new issues were brought up. The existing members who are VERY against it, may have influenced new ITAC members who were charged with deciding.

Further, I'm honestly perturbed that the ITAC still has a member who doesn't race in the category, hasn't raced in the category for what, 3 years, missed nearly 50% of the calls for years, and rarely took part in on line discussions, yet still votes. My notes show that he admitted the need for alternate mounts, admitted using alternate mounts, yet voted against them. I feel that his vote should be struck, as not being genuine.

How the committee (and the CRB) can "look the other way" is alarming, and it's things like that which keep the Secret Car Club moniker going, and generate the smoke which escapes from the back room occasionally.

Members have a right to representation, and to see how that representation works. There should be NOTHING to hide...this is club racing, not National security!:shrug:

[Ron Earp]

Further, I'm honestly perturbed that the ITAC still has a member who doesn't race in the category, hasn't raced in the category for what, 3 years, missed nearly 50% of the calls for years, and rarely took part in on line discussions, yet still votes. My notes show that he admitted the need for alternate mounts, admitted using alternate mounts, yet voted against them. I feel that his vote should be struck, as not being genuine.

Members have a right to representation, and to see how that representation works. There should be NOTHING to hide...this is club racing, not National security!:shrug:


So this member is either Lee or Les, one of the two old timers that have been on the ITAC for like 10-15 years? And, the membership is to understand and accept that a self-professed cheater, who has a seat on the ITAC and hasn't raced in a few years, has a heavy influence on the direction of IT and is one of the few calling the shots? Ridiculous.

Term limits and participation clauses need to be put in place throughout the SCCA and effective at time of introduction. Five year term limit enacted now; you've been here fifteen years? Thanks for your service you're discharged immediately. Not five more years of service after the term limit clause goes into effect. Haven't raced in the class structure you oversee in more than a year? That is a sign of disinterest and you do not need to be on the committee. You can't understand what the racers' needs are if you aren't out with them participating in what they do.

Members do have a right to see how the club works. But I don't have much faith that members ever will get to see how the club works unless this system gets an overhaul.

[gran racing]

You can't understand what the racers' needs are if you aren't out with them participating in what they do.

I have some mixed feelings that a person needs to be an active racer in that category. This is where votes or their resume comes into play. If you have a person who has been involved with the category, isn't racing right now (could be for many valid reasons such as an injury, or financial), but wants to provide a meaningful contribution - don't automatically disclude them. These cases should probably be the exception, but would hate to close the door completely.

The system absolutely needs to overhauled. I'm not so sure that voting CRB and ITAC (or other ACs) members is the best approach. As previously said, another challenge is finding qualified people to volunteer for these positions. Heck, even look at how BODs come into power. This past round in the NE, there was only one person who ran. We are extremely fortunate who that person was and I honestly can not think of a better person for the job. But what happened if it wasn't Dick P. who ran and we had a much different person?

I can not think of an easy solution. Maybe we need to hire some of these members and treat them as employees?

[quadzjr]

I never thought I would say this but I think I am going to submit a resume for the CRB.

I think Chuck submitted hsi resume to the CRB and was posted in the last fasttrack, apparently no positions are open at this time.

[lateapex911]

Dave, good points. There are CERTAINLY reasons that people need to take a break from racing. Take Rick Pocock, who was the former head of the ITAC before Darin Jordan. He left the ITAC because he had to sell his trailer! Yup, he moved to a new house, and found out later that you can't park a trailer in the drive. His solution was to get a trailer (and therefor race car) that he could fit in the garage. I was sorry to see him leave, but he was pretty cool with it..."You don't want me if i'm not involved with the category", he said. Fair enough. BUT, if he had decided to sell the car and sell the house in two years and get back into IT, I think we would be cool with a 'participation break".

Smae goes for medical or financial reasons.

And there are advantages to long standing members on committees: Institutional memory. It's important to know where we came from, and why we got where we are. But, to have that institutional memory, the person needs to be active, open minded and on the ball.

Finally, the changes Dick Patullo (area 1 (?) Director) has listed are good ones. From what I've been told the new CRB liason has a top notch reputation. I think he is from the AS world.

[JeffYoung]

One of the crucial issues for me, and one that I'd like to hear thoughts on, is how bound the ITAC should be by what was done previously.

Right now, we are looking at the Process and how to apply it going forward. One of the key principles of the "old" ITAC -- and one I firmly agree with -- was that we wanted to create a mechanism that "future" ITACs would objectively use to class cars.

Do most of the folks here agree wth that? That the process should essentially be made "rule of law" that can't be changed? Or is it just a tool that "future" ITACs can use/discard/modify?

Note the value of consistency here. One of the big problems we have is reconciling the fact that many of the cars in the ITCS had their weights set via the old "curb weight" formula, and a smaller number via the Process. That creates inequities and inconsistencies that are pointed out to us on a REGULAR basis.

It would seem to me that continuing to modify or alter the weight classification formula is generally a bad idea, as it undercuts consistency, objectivity and repeatability.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, over the past 5 years, the members have spoken up numerous times in regards to the Process. Most recently, I think the CRB got significant input on it over the Audi debacle. You can look up those letters, but, in general, of those that pay attention and notice, it's been a resounding success. It's turned some harsh critics around 180 degrees. I know there are a couple guys out there who are detractors, but even those guys are critical of certain aspects (notably the performance bogeys in ITB, for example) rather then the procedural methods themselves.

I'd go even further to say that public support has grown over the years, reaching a high about a year and a couple months ago, and I felt V2 was able to meet the members toughest critics and their loftiest goals.

Your question of making it a "rule" is a good one. Previous to the "Bettencout/Jordan era" (if you will, LOL) of the ITAC, it was universally agreed that any system or pattern used in the past was difficult to discern, and the results were somewhat ineffective. Heck, that's WHY guys like Andy and myself got involved in the first place. There was a clear and obvious NEED to right a listing ship. MY first reaction to "make it a 'rule of law'" (and by that I assume you mean something added to the GCR) was too severe, but, thinking about it more, why not? GCR rules can be changed...it just requires the wherewithal to suggest a different version, publish it and get feedback from the members. The more I think about it, the more I like it, as the members would be involved.

If that's what it takes to get it documented and shine sunlight in there, then by all means.

[Butch Kummer]

I think Chuck submitted hsi resume to the CRB and was posted in the last fasttrack, apparently no positions are open at this time.

The CRB typically changes over near the end of the year, and that will increasingly come into play as the new "rules season" is implemented. Although the recent flip-flop on the FIA seats had me seriously questioning my interest in serving, the thought of working with Andy (whom I've never met except through the forums) has me enthused about the possibility again.

[seckerich]

In my opinion Jeff you are correct in wanting to have a "paper trail" if you may. or written information on how cars were classed. There is a balance we all have to live with. We race IT now, and many have raced IT forever and a day. We do not have the right to screw it up for those that will race after us any more than those that raced 5 years ago. Finding the correct balance of preserving the catagory and meeting the current drivers wishes is a delicate balance. Right now there is a very lop-sided control on the part of the ITAC/CRB that needs to get fixed. Lets hope that is starting to happen.

[gran racing]

Do most of the folks here agree wth that?

Absolutely, but it can't just apply to cars classed going forward. The same process (there can be differences among classes to the process itself) should be used for all cars.

It still ceases to amaze me that we as a club are okay with using a tool only for future cars and potentially new members but give the shaft to existing members / customers. Really, it's a stupid business decision at best.

[timo944]

One of the crucial issues for me, and one that I'd like to hear thoughts on, is how bound the ITAC should be by what was done previously.

Right now, we are looking at the Process and how to apply it going forward. One of the key principles of the "old" ITAC -- and one I firmly agree with -- was that we wanted to create a mechanism that "future" ITACs would objectively use to class cars.

Do most of the folks here agree wth that? That the process should essentially be made "rule of law" that can't be changed? Or is it just a tool that "future" ITACs can use/discard/modify?

Note the value of consistency here. One of the big problems we have is reconciling the fact that many of the cars in the ITCS had their weights set via the old "curb weight" formula, and a smaller number via the Process. That creates inequities and inconsistencies that are pointed out to us on a REGULAR basis.

It would seem to me that continuing to modify or alter the weight classification formula is generally a bad idea, as it undercuts consistency, objectivity and repeatability.

Jeff - as an infrequent but interested passer by in this forum I agree with you, but there does need to be a methodology, when good reasons exist, for an "out." That is hard to put in writing. The weight issue was (IMHO) well handled. They took the time and made adjustments on a limited basis, based on good data, to level the playing field somewhat. This benefitted some, me included, making it more fun to race ITS. I don't get my doors blown off as bad as I used to.

As for the motor mounts issue I am really disappointed in the CRB. There is nothing lost in approving the change and it seems to me it is consistent with IT philosophy. It is also consistent with the theme of "affordable" (ROTFL) racing.

[GKR_17]

It would seem to me that continuing to modify or alter the weight classification formula is generally a bad idea, as it undercuts consistency, objectivity and repeatability.



I'd go even further to say that public support has grown over the years, reaching a high about a year and a couple months ago, and I felt V2 was able to meet the members toughest critics and their loftiest goals.

It took me a while to accept the process (the great realignment felt like a massive comp adjustment). But I soon saw the advantage of a relatively consistent approach, anyone could figure the weight of any potential car and match the ITAC to 50 pounds or so. It was a major mistake not to apply it all cars at one time.

V2 was a major problem though. The intent was good, but it just opened the door for regular 'upgrades'.

[JeffYoung]

That was my problem with v2 as well. It seemed too ambitious and you never felt like the additions of modifiers for this, or that were going to stop.

But we got sense and they did, once we got FWD and torque squared away.

[Knestis]

That was my problem with v2 as well. It seemed too ambitious and you never felt like the additions of modifiers for this, or that were going to stop.

But we got sense and they did, once we got FWD and torque squared away.

I'm invested so take this for what it's worth, but I don't think it's a fair characterization to describe v.2 that way. Can you think of ANY factor that was under consideration that subsequently didn't get applied? We talked about lots of different possible ways to address torque, for example, but we never piled on with new factors. And some fell off the "old" list very early in that evolution.

And once Jake got it recorded (RIP v.2, right before the blow up), it was done. We didn't have any outstanding questions to be resolved, did we?

K

EDIT - And I'm not entirely sure what "opened the door for more upgrades" means but one practice that we (I think) codified was limited review (e.g., putting a "born on" date in the ITCS when a spec was set to the process, so it wouldn't get done over, and over, and over).

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, no worries. Here were my (personal) concerns about where V2 was going. We had a discussion once about how we would both like NO subjective adders/subtractors, since that was the cleanest way to do this:

1. The "suspension" modifier got changed. I think at one point there was a deduct for struts, etc., and "beam axle" deduction for a beam on FWD cars was dropped.

2. We had a tranny modifier at one time, essentially for the 1:1 ratios in the BMWs.

3. We had a basically "I know it when I see it" brake adder/subtractor that spooked me.

4. The use of Lapsim to try to quantify the FWD deduct REALLY spooked me, and we ended up going from a straight 50/100/150 lb deduct to a percentage. Cars have been classed both ways.

5. We tried all sorts of formulations of torque, and I like how we ended up - only cars WAY outside the norm (like mine) get a modifier.

6. The default power multipliers. It at one time was way more complicated. 25% for most, 15% for Porsches, 35% for rotaries, 35% for inline sixes (that one always mystified me), 30% for 16v cars in ITB, etc.

But the biggest problem for me was that for a time I sensed no end to the tweaking of the process, and that (implicit) thought that we could come up with something that balanced all cars on the head of a pin. I'm glad we didn't go that far, and I too felt very comfortable with V2 as it was, essentially, finalized before the Great Exodus.

What concerns me though is we never (a) locked V2 down as a rule (and there was still ongoing debate over things like when we used the 25% default and when we didn't) and --- this one was critical to me -- (b) we published V2 to membership.

I still see the Process as being in jeopardy, and not yet "static," which I don't like. More change and instability to it will just cause (in my view) more issues.

[lateapex911]

Kirk, no worries. Here were my (personal) concerns about where V2 was going. We had a discussion once about how we would both like NO subjective adders/subtractors, since that was the cleanest way to do this:

1. The "suspension" modifier got changed. I think at one point there was a deduct for struts, etc., and "beam axle" deduction for a beam on FWD cars was dropped.

There always has been a deduct for struts. And the beam axle thing did get droped, but I don't think it was applied often ayway. I THINK there are few legacy cars with it, although there is one significnt one.



2. We had a tranny modifier at one time, essentially for the 1:1 ratios in the BMWs.


3. We had a basically "I know it when I see it" brake adder/subtractor that spooked me.

That's what I liked about V2, it put down in writing what subjective things like that were, and when they could be utilized. Before, we had teh infamous 'negotiation" of some Honda where one guy would debate the power and another would "give" 25 for brakes. Wrong, even if the weight that resulted was a good one, we could never reproduce the same result without resorting to notes and memory. Very bad.


4. The use of Lapsim to try to quantify the FWD deduct REALLY spooked me, and we ended up going from a straight 50/100/150 lb deduct to a percentage. Cars have been classed both ways.
Wait a minute...the lap sim thing was used to confirm out subjective feelings about the basic amounts each class gets for FWD. The percentage was based on a median car and that basic amount. So, a lighter car gets less off, and a heavier car gets more, but it's directly proportional to the mean car. That's a awesome refinement, with no drawbacks. yes older cars may have been slightly different, but the differences are in the 15 or 30 pound range, for most of the more significant cases. no biggie, just more consistent and proper. And for the median cars, : NO difference.


5. We tried all sorts of formulations of torque, and I like how we ended up - only cars WAY outside the norm (like mine) get a modifier.
Again, a much better guide was created to know WHEN it was to be used.


6. The default power multipliers. It at one time was way more complicated. 25% for most, 15% for Porsches, 35% for rotaries, 35% for inline sixes (that one always mystified me), 30% for 16v cars in ITB, etc.
Actually, V2 made things simpler, AND it freed up the ITAC to go outside the box when it needed to with the confidence vote on non standard multipliers. BUT, it couldn't go outside the box on a whim, or a negotiation. That's GOOD.


But the biggest problem for me was that for a time I sensed no end to the tweaking of the process, and that (implicit) thought that we could come up with something that balanced all cars on the head of a pin. I'm glad we didn't go that far, and I too felt very comfortable with V2 as it was, essentially, finalized before the Great Exodus.
My wish list for the V2 had little to do with balancing cars on the head of a pin, and everything to do with rational methods, repeatable methods and a protocol that I could explain to anybody. No having to answer why some guy added weight "because I KNOW it needs it, and I scream louder and talk over EVERYbody".


What concerns me though is we never (a) locked V2 down as a rule (and there was still ongoing debate over things like when we used the 25% default and when we didn't) and --- this one was critical to me -- (b) we published V2 to membership.

I still see the Process as being in jeopardy, and not yet "static," which I don't like. More change and instability to it will just cause (in my view) more issues.

Hey, we tried, but, well, you know, the PTB didn't like the goals, clearly.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There always has been a deduct for struts.


There has NEVER been a deduct for struts in the core IT classes. ONLY an adder for DW's. Why can't anyone remember this stuff but me?


My wish list for the V2 had little to do with balancing cars on the head of a pin, and everything to do with rational methods, repeatable methods and a protocol that I could explain to anybody. No having to answer why some guy added weight "because I KNOW it needs it, and I scream louder and talk over EVERYbody".



Hey, we tried, but, well, you know, the PTB didn't like the goals, clearly.

V.2 was simply the clarification of the Process so it could be written down on paper, defined and shown to anyone who wanted to see it (especially any new ITAC or CRB members). Charaterizing as a whole 'nother version is also a major disservice to it. We tweaked a couple things that made sense while were were writing it down.

[JeffYoung]

The above is 100% the reason why we need to write the process down, make it a rule and publish it.

We have 3 guys who were intimately involved in this from close to day one, and one (me) who caught the tail end, and we all have slightly different recollections of what happened.

I do agree that v1 and v2 at their core were/are the same. stock hp/expected IT gain/class multiplier. I agree saying v2 was a fundamental change is wrong, especially how it ended up.

But there was a period of time there where I (personally) was very concerned we were going way, way too far with the number and complexity of the modifiers.

and that Lapsim shit (gutcheck or otherwise) drove me crazy! The program had a box to check for "FWD" that no one could explain what it did....no offense Jake..lol

Others may disagree.

All in all, v2 (or really v1.1) was something we all pretty much agreed on, and in my view should be (broken record here) written down, made a rule and PUBLISHED so we can't dick with it anymore.

[tom91ita]

Absolutely, but it can't just apply to cars classed going forward. The same process (there can be differences among classes to the process itself) should be used for all cars.

It still ceases to amaze me that we as a club are okay with using a tool only for future cars and potentially new members but give the shaft to existing members / customers. Really, it's a stupid business decision at best.

agreed. if i am asking for my car to be re-evaluated with "the process" then i can't bitch when it is applied to others.

[lateapex911]

There has NEVER been a deduct for struts in the core IT classes. ONLY an adder for DW's. Why can't anyone remember this stuff but me?



V.2 was simply the clarification of the Process so it could be written down on paper, defined and shown to anyone who wanted to see it (especially any new ITAC or CRB members). Charaterizing as a whole 'nother version is also a major disservice to it. We tweaked a couple things that made sense while were were writing it down.

LOL, yup, right...see!? I should have checked my notes. WHICH is, as Jeff points out WHY it's SO important to write a manual and use it.

At least I got most of the other stuff.

[seckerich]

Just curious what is stopping those who are no longer on the ITAC from publishing it right here after they bounce it around and make sure it was what was agreed on and presented to the CRB. If it is no longer used why not??

[Knestis]

... What concerns me though is we never (a) locked V2 down as a rule (and there was still ongoing debate over things like when we used the 25% default and when we didn't) and --- this one was critical to me -- (b) we published V2 to membership.

I still see the Process as being in jeopardy, and not yet "static," which I don't like. More change and instability to it will just cause (in my view) more issues.

It's all ancient history now and nobody - save a half-dozen people on this site - give a crap, but remember that there was a set of procedures that we codified, that wrapped around the Process math. We KNEW what the system was, if someone believed that there was evidence that deserved consideration for a non-standard (other than 25%) power factor.

So far as I can tell, none of that has survived. Of couse, it's all super-secret now and frankly, to me the process is effectively in hospice care - if not already dead.

I'm convinced at this point that if Peter K decides a car should weigh 3000 pounds, it will weigh 3000 pounds.

K

[Knestis]

Just curious what is stopping those who are no longer on the ITAC from publishing it right here after they bounce it around and make sure it was what was agreed on and presented to the CRB. If it is no longer used why not??

I deleted my copy after suggesting I should share it, then being asked not to, shortly after my resignation.

K

[lateapex911]

I could have SWORN it made it out ...but maybe that was V1. I should have it in my files. It would be interesting to get the racers take on it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just curious what is stopping those who are no longer on the ITAC from publishing it right here

1. Because I am sure they still use it for new classifications
2. Respect for the ITAC and CRB

If they want it published, they can/will publish it.

[gran racing]

It would hold them too accountable for them to publish whatever process is being used.

[Knestis]

Dave's right on. They COULD publish it but the culture hasn't changed so there's exactly ZERO chance of that happening now. We've gone backward 5 years or more in fact, in terms of openness but again, pretty much nobody knows one way or the other. And of those to do know, most don't care.

K

[rsportvolvo]

I wanted to publicly thank Josh Sirota for taking the time to discuss my letters via email and phone calls. He and other ITAC members are working to uncuff themselves from some current regulations that will help clean up issues within IT. I hope this all works out in the coming months.

As for the Process, etc. it appears that only ITAC members, mostly former, have the full story on how the cars are run through the Process, whatever it is. I recommend instead of alluding to this or that adder just post V1, V2 or whatever version we're currently on just post the Process. As with any model there are fudge factors, er coefficients, so it will never be a supremely precise model.

Then again knowledge is power, so those folks lose some clout if all is aired. How about it insiders? Care to share?

[seckerich]

1. Because I am sure they still use it for new classifications
2. Respect for the ITAC and CRB

If they want it published, they can/will publish it.

Congratulations, you are now part of the problem you fought against. Good luck on the CRB if you get appointed.

[JeffYoung]

I am 100% in favor of publishing (and I think Kirk and I were in a minority on that point as late as summer of last year). I'll put in the agenda for the next call.

We are not yet to the point where weights are set by a single CRB member, but it is true that a lot of the procedural aspects of making weight decisions using the process seem to have been abandoned, which is not good in my view. Moreover, in my opinion, it is not clear to me that the existing ITAC believes an objective, repeatable, transparent process without wiggle room is the way to go. It will be discussed in July. Jake is correct we've gotten a lot of member input mostly in favor of the process, and if you continue to support its use, now's the time to write in on it (again).

[gran racing]

I don't think anyone has said it shouldn't have some wiggle room. It's also recognized that it won't be perfect, but at least someone can explain how cars are actually classed. That's not too much to demand.

[erlrich]

That's not too much to demand.

...apparently it is :shrug:

[JeffYoung]

My personal opinion is no wiggle room is best. In fact, I'd be in favor of a straight:

stock hp x IT gain (default of 1.25) x class multiplier.

I think that gets everyone close enough to have fun and be competitive.

Wiggle room causes problems (in my view).

[seckerich]

My personal opinion is no wiggle room is best. In fact, I'd be in favor of a straight:

stock hp x IT gain (default of 1.25) x class multiplier.

I think that gets everyone close enough to have fun and be competitive.

Wiggle room causes problems (in my view).

A straight 25% would create the BMW,RX7, etc overdog. Need to back up and see if that sounds like fun. You will not get much support for that view.

[JeffYoung]

I wasn't clear -- we change the multiplier when we have evidence to prove it.

The wiggle room I was talking about were things like the live rear deduct, the brake modifier, the suspension modifier, the FWD deduct, etc.

stock hp x. 1.25 default (but modified by actual dyno evidence of higher or lower gain if we have it) x the class multiplier.

That said, I am actually fine with v2 of the process and how we were applying it last year. The "process" Kirk mentioned by which we each documented how and why we agreed on a particular modifier was a clever tool that worked.

[lateapex911]

I am 100% in favor of publishing (and I think Kirk and I were in a minority on that point as late as summer of last year). I'll put in the agenda for the next call.

We are not yet to the point where weights are set by a single CRB member, but it is true that a lot of the procedural aspects of making weight decisions using the process seem to have been abandoned, which is not good in my view. Moreover, in my opinion, it is not clear to me that the existing ITAC believes an objective, repeatable, transparent process without wiggle room is the way to go. It will be discussed in July. Jake is correct we've gotten a lot of member input mostly in favor of the process, and if you continue to support its use, now's the time to write in on it (again).


THAT is a scary scary post. The GOOD news is that it will take awhile to undo 5 years of progress, but the bad news is that unless you are fighting the universal law of order to disorder, you can get there FAST.

Jeff, I love you, and thank the Patron Saint of IT that you, and presumably Josh are in there fighting the good fight, but....more letters? Man, it's clear to me that the CRB (as represented by those on the calls in my tenure) either COMPLETELY MISSED the fact that member approval was higher than EVER in IT, or, they get that but really think they know better, or, possibly, they get it, but they just want to do it their way.

While the ITAC is the first step in the procedure and it needs to know to use the process and be consistent, it's the CRB that derailed the ITAC in the first place, and really, the CRB should be saying, "Guys? You're not being consistent, the members have shown their support of your past methods, keep going in the direction you were going in".

But we all know THAT's not going to happen, LOL.

So while I'd like to think yet another letter writing campaign would be helpful, it's getting to be a case of the boy who cried wolf.

Jeff, I realize you are in a tricky spot from a communications aspect, but, how will a letter writing campaign help?
-Will it educate the newer members of the ITAC to the desires of the membership? (I'd HOPE that these guys KNOW the category and the members thoughts long before getting on the ITAC, but...)
-Will it hammer home to existing ITAC members the need to SERVE the public?
-Will it do the same for the CRB?

If so, then I'll take the time, but I'm sure ANYbody else's letter will be more effective than mine, I know how I'm regarded up the line, LOL.
(Which is fine, but I wish we could get honest and open debate from my detractors)

[JeffYoung]

My personal feeling -- and it is just my personal opinion -- is that after the Great Exodus (you, Kirk, Andy and Scott all leaving in a few months) there were discussions between the CRB and the BoD over the direction of IT.

The CRB folks have been very reasonable, easy to work with and open minded since those very difficult calls at the end of last year. I think they are listening to member input. While the decision is what it is, I can tell you they paid very close attention to the letters on motor mounts.

I think they will do the same to another set of input about the process.

I really hate that membership seems down on submitting letters as a result of the motor mount situation. While I understand the frustration in not getting what you (and I) wanted, I can tell you the letters were not ignored. They were read and considered.

P.S. Yes, I think it will serve all three purposes you list.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Congratulations, you are now part of the problem you fought against. Good luck on the CRB if you get appointed.

I disagree. When on the ITAC we were setting it up so it could be published. Since I am not on the ITAC anymore, I don't feel it is my 'right' to publish information I have just because I have it. It's out of respect for the people whose right is it to publish or not publish. To me, it's more about being a professional.

If there comes a day when I am on the CRB, I will fight to publish it then too.

[JoshS]

Last month at our April meeting we focused almost exclusively on rule change requests. This month at our May meeting this week, we focused on car classification. There are three open prep allowance rules change questions, one of which is out right now for member input (keep it coming!), and the other two (ABS and update/backdate) have not yet been discussed.

We made some pretty good progress on the car classification requests but there were several requests for which we needed a LOT more detail. In all, 14 letters were sent up to the CRB for review, and there are 3 others that I hope we can finish up with some post-meeting followup, and get those sent to the CRB for their upcoming meeting too. The rest were tabled.

For those of you writing in asking us to change spec lines or add spec lines, it would be really helpful if you included a VTS sheet. There is a link on the crbscca.com site for a blank form. When you include a VTS, include information about horsepower, torque, all of the information that would go onto a published spec line, and anything else that would be pertinent to classing decisions (such as differences between model years of a vehicle, etc.) Please include copies of shop manual pages and any other supporting info. When we don't have all of the info, we usually have to table letters in order to gather it. Everything goes quicker when we have everything at once and it's usually the interested parties who have easy access to the data we need. Just assume we'll need it. Too much information is way better than not enough.

Obviously, the issue of how to handle existing listings that seem to have some consistency issues is still the big elephant in the room. We are at a point right now where we are trying to follow the rules and the guidelines outlined during the period of the great realignment, which are the rules and guidelines that have approval and sanction from the BOD, but those rules really prevent us from adjusting pretty much anything.

Even though I've been hinting that a member letter asking us to change the rules that lock us down would be helpful, no such letter has arrived. So at one of our upcoming meetings this summer, we will not discuss specific letters, but instead, will dedicate the meeting to such a rules change.

Note that with the way the rules season has been structured, it is pretty much too late to change anything for 2011 at this point. A rules change would not take effect until 2012. This gives us a pretty good amount of time to consider what we're doing and hopefully get it right.

A lot of the letters coming in requesting adjustments to existing listings are of one of the following forms (all of which were present on this month's agenda):
- "My car can't compete at its current weight, please reduce the weight"
- "The weight my car was assigned doesn't look consistent with the weights that other cars were assigned." These don't typically outright SAY "I can't keep up at the current weight and I need help, and this is a way to justify a weight break" but I think that's behind at least a few of them.
- "My car was assigned a weight based on the most recent process, but there's no way I can make that much power."

In other words, there are definitely people out there who think we should be looking at racing results and adjusting weights based on that. There are others who think things just need to be consistent as long as some elements of the cars in question are similar. And there are some that have might have never gotten their car on the track, and are just challenging the assumptions used in the weight assignment process. It's pretty much all over the map.

I'd remind you all to look at the current rules. There is only one justification in the rulebook right now to change the weight of or reclass a car: "racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class". Changes are only permitted within the first five years of a classification, and then after that only "on rare occasion and after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular vehicle."

So the rules actually do authorize what most would consider to be "comp adjustments" although as a practice, the ITAC has not used that authorization since I have been involved, at least, I can't recall any instances. The rules do *not* allow us to make changes due to rulebook inconsistency. In fact, specifically by the rules, it's pretty much pointless to ask for a weight change request without including a lot of event results, and then, only if the classification is less than 5 years old. It's easy to see why some people still think that's the way to get things done, and some think it's the way things SHOULD be done, even though on these forums that has not been the general consensus.

Speaking personally, I'm a bit baffled as to how there could be such a difference between what is codified in the rules (which is also what was pitched to the BOD and approved) and what the SOP was at the time that I got involved in the ITAC in early 2007, and is still pretty much SOP today. It's likely that my own personal history in the institution doesn't go back far enough to understand it (member for 22 years, but I've really only been paying attention to IT since 2005.)

Yes, even in the last couple of months we have been making changes that are not based on racing results, on the grounds that these are errors: in those cases when two "identical" cars are at different weights or in different classes, we have agreed that one of them must be an error. Even this is a stretch of the rules as written but I thought you all would have been happy that we're at least allowed to make SOME changes (clearly from reading above and on the other forum, some of you would rather having nothing than something though.)

In any case, this summer we will work through these rules and we will possibly propose some changes that would give the ITAC a little bit more to work with when it comes to existing listings. Along those lines, one question I'll put to the group is: do you think that the specific process that's used needs to be in the rulebook? Or is it okay to have it codified as an operations manual for the committee? Most racing rulebooks that I've ever seen do not describe how their rules-making bodies operate, but I'm open-minded.

As always, please feel free to call me if you want to discuss anything in more detail. If you need my phone number, send me e-mail through the forum and I'll give it to you (I just don't like to post it where search engines will find it!)

[Butch Kummer]

While the ITAC is the first step in the procedure and it needs to know to use the process and be consistent, it's the CRB that derailed the ITAC in the first place, and really, the CRB should be saying, "Guys? You're not being consistent, the members have shown their support of your past methods, keep going in the direction you were going in".

But we all know THAT's not going to happen in the next six months, LOL.


Editted for accuracy.

I obviously don't know the inner workings of the current CRB, but I DO know there are folks in high places that have urged me (and I assume Andy) to submit an application to be on the CRB. I have done so. And while the lack of communication about the FIA seat certainly caused me to reconsider, Andy's interest has renewed my enthusiasm for serving (so you could say I've re-reconsidered :blink:).

As I believe I've shown during less controversial discussions on the various forums (mainly about group make-ups at the ARRC), I am a firm believer in transparency and accountability as expoused by the Process (both V.1 & V.2). We need to have open communication about WHY decisions are made as well at what was decided. Yes it takes more work on my part to put my decision-making process into complete sentences for the Miata drivers, but doing so both clarifies my thoughts and allows others to either (a) understand how I got to where I am or (b) point out possible errors in my logic. Either way, we end up with a better end product (an example being the better groupings we've developed for the 2010 version of the ARRC).

I know you guys want resolution (I almost typed "change", but that would push this into a political discussion :rolleyes:) immediately, but that's not the way things work. What I CAN say, however, is the calvary is on the way.

[JeffYoung]

Very positive posts, and thanks for the excellent summary Josh. Good job.

A CRB with Andy and Butch on board would be a great thing for IT I think.

[jjjanos]

I'd remind you all to look at the current rules. There is only one justification in the rulebook right now to change the weight of or reclass a car: "racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class". Changes are only permitted within the first five years of a classification, and then after that only "on rare occasion and after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular vehicle."


Reduce weight of the 320i In 9.1.3, ITB, BMW 320i 2.0 (77-79), change from 2510 lbs. to

2340 lbs. -

http://cms.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/10/10-fastrack-feb.pdf


That sir would invalidate your above statement unless you can demonstrate that the car has been listed for 4 or less years.


There is no allowance to adjust the weight simply because a car with similar specifications has a lower weight.



Yes, even in the last couple of months we have been making changes that are not based on racing results, on the grounds that these are errors: in those cases when two "identical" cars are at different weights or in different classes, we have agreed that one of them must be an error. Even this is a stretch of the rules as written but I thought you all would have been happy that we're at least allowed to make SOME changes (clearly from reading above and on the other forum, some of you would rather having nothing than something though.)

No sir - that is playing favorites. Car A and B are classified under one regime - both cars are classified "correctly" under that regime. Car C is classified correctly at a later date under a newer regime and receives a lower weight. Car C received a benefit of using a different regime, but all classifications are correct.

There is no error in any of the classifications, period. Two "identical" cars having different weights is not evidence of error or omission. It is evidence that inconsistent classification methods have been used and, as the CRB has painfully demonstrated, there is no recourse for such inconsistency.

Changing Car A is not applying an errors/omission clause, it is applying a different classification method to the detriment of all cars classified under the older regime. In short, if Car A is in error, then all cars classified under the older regimeare also potentially in error and should receive the same exact consideration of using the newer regime.

[lateapex911]

Very positive posts, and thanks for the excellent summary Josh. Good job.

A CRB with Andy and Butch on board would be a great thing for IT I think.

It would be a great thing for the CLUB.

Butch is right guys, he IS a guy who, simply, checks his ego at the door, and gets down to work. Old school, get it done with an open mind behavior. If I could vote, I sure would.

Josh, I considered sending such a letter, but, I know what would have happened to that letter. ;)

My reaction to yourquestion regarding classing process is that sure, put it in the rulebook. V2 has the structure to be able to be documented, yet the internal flexibility to be effective.

IT would do WONDERS for member confidence.
Will you get letters telling you it's "wrong" YUP! But that's fine, people will ALWAYS write in with cloaked agendas...hey, most don't even know they have a cloaked, or hidden agenda, they've rationalized it out in their mind.

Oh, I think NASA publishes their method. (For the PT category)

[lateapex911]

There is no error in any of the classifications, period.




Jeff, Josh is trying to do what ever he can to make inroads in getting things consistent. I think the BMW 320 issue was that the same basic car, the 2002, has the same engine and suspension, essentially, and to the Process, they are the same car. So, both got examined, and one was considered to be right on the Process weight, so the other was adjusted to match.
Technically, you are correct, neither is an "error". But I have to tell you, my head was SPINNING each month after listening to the CRB define an "error". Each month I swore the answer was different, but honestly, I don't know what the operations manual states, so perhaps I was just not "getting it"...

Oh, there IS a REAL 'error' in the GCR...teh MR2. SOP at the time that car went to ITB was to use 25% for all basic process calcs, and it didn't get used on the MR2. That was my fault...I was traveling, taking the notes, running the meeting, all from a laptop, when usually I have 3 monitors open. Andy missed that call, and I blew it. Sorry to the MR2 guys, but don't stone me, ;) who knows if we had done the math right it might not have been approved by the CRB anyway....

[JoshS]

Oh, I think NASA publishes their method. (For the PT category)

No, they don't. The base classing and weights are a mystery, known only to the PT committee (which to my last knowledge was 1 guy, but that was a couple years ago, don't know if anything has changed.)

[JoshS]

There is no error in any of the classifications, period. Two "identical" cars having different weights is not evidence of error or omission. It is evidence that inconsistent classification methods have been used and, as the CRB has painfully demonstrated, there is no recourse for such inconsistency.

That is the purist way of looking at it, and I actually agree if we're going to be precise, believe it or not. Except ... there is a recourse that is okay with all parties involved, which is the handling of these things as errors. Maybe less pure but I think you might be the only one who has a problem with at least making some changes under the current ruleset. At least, you are the only one who I have actually heard voice a concern. I'm sure if the ITAC proposes a rule change then during the member input phase we'll hear from more people who would like to see no changes at all.

[lateapex911]

No, they don't. The base classing and weights are a mystery, known only to the PT committee (which to my last knowledge was 1 guy, but that was a couple years ago, don't know if anything has changed.)

My mistake, I thought there was a base formula and a lot of 'points" and such that moved you up or down.

[JoshS]

My mistake, I thought there was a base formula and a lot of 'points" and such that moved you up or down.

There is. Each car is listed in a class with a minimum weight. You can run it 100% stock in the listed class. Or, you can make changes to your car which accumulate points, which might move you up or down. But the base listing is where competitiveness is really determined, and how that is determined is not public.

[Knestis]

Congratulations, you are now part of the problem you fought against. Good luck on the CRB if you get appointed.
... it appears that only ITAC members, mostly former, have the full story on how the cars are run through the Process, whatever it is. I recommend instead of alluding to this or that adder just post V1, V2 or whatever version we're currently on just post the Process. As with any model there are fudge factors, er coefficients, so it will never be a supremely precise model.

Then again knowledge is power, so those folks lose some clout if all is aired. How about it insiders? Care to share?

Not fair.

When I signed on to the ITAC, I agreed to certain organizational/behavior standards. One was that - unfortunately in my view - we were not empowered to share internal documents publicly. Regardless, that's the deal I agreed to. I adhere pretty fervently to what I think are professional standards of practice and "screw you, I'm doing what I think is best, regardless" is not in my DNA.

I busted my ass to work with other committee members codify standard practices to push for more consistency and transparency but the same ethical commitment that drove that makes it not OK to go back on an agreement as fundamental as that.

I daresay Andy likely feels the same in this regard.

K

EDIT - I have no "clout" to lose, in case you hadn't noticed.

[Knestis]

...Speaking personally, I'm a bit baffled as to how there could be such a difference between what is codified in the rules (which is also what was pitched to the BOD and approved) and what the SOP was at the time that I got involved in the ITAC in early 2007, and is still pretty much SOP today. It's likely that my own personal history in the institution doesn't go back far enough to understand it (member for 22 years, but I've really only been paying attention to IT since 2005.)

Yes, even in the last couple of months we have been making changes that are not based on racing results, on the grounds that these are errors: in those cases when two "identical" cars are at different weights or in different classes, we have agreed that one of them must be an error. Even this is a stretch of the rules as written but I thought you all would have been happy that we're at least allowed to make SOME changes (clearly from reading above and on the other forum, some of you would rather having nothing than something though.) ...

So far as I can tell, EVERY change that got made in recent years was done under the auspices of "error." That's the core of the resolution to the whole problem, and precisely where the powers-that-be in the CRB (with support of the BoD) will be most resistant - defining precisely how things should work, thereby defining what an ERROR actually is.

Right now, as JJJ points out, there's huge opportunity to play favorites, picking and choosing based on flexible personal definitions of that word. Mr. Keane will defend the process-derived weight of one car as being "without error" but will argue against applying that same process to a different make/model because, well, it would be "wrong."

Codify the definition of "right" to be "consistent with the following process...", get that process documented, and the problem disappears in a puff of logic. Of course, so does the opportunity for a few people to tweak things to align with their own little definitions of right and wrong...

K

[tom91ita]

.....A lot of the letters coming in requesting adjustments to existing listings are of one of the following forms (all of which were present on this month's agenda):
- "My car can't compete at its current weight, please reduce the weight"
- "The weight my car was assigned doesn't look consistent with the weights that other cars were assigned." These don't typically outright SAY "I can't keep up at the current weight and I need help, and this is a way to justify a weight break" but I think that's behind at least a few of them.
- "My car was assigned a weight based on the most recent process, but there's no way I can make that much power."

In other words, there are definitely people out there who think we should be looking at racing results and adjusting weights based on that. There are others who think things just need to be consistent as long as some elements of the cars in question are similar. And there are some that have might have never gotten their car on the track, and are just challenging the assumptions used in the weight assignment process. It's pretty much all over the map.

I'd remind you all to look at the current rules. There is only one justification in the rulebook right now to change the weight of or reclass a car: "racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class". Changes are only permitted within the first five years of a classification, and then after that only "on rare occasion and after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular vehicle."

.......................



.........Right now, as JJJ points out, there's huge opportunity to play favorites, picking and choosing based on flexible personal definitions of that word. Mr. Keane will defend the process-derived weight of one car as being "without error" but will argue against applying that same process to a different make/model because, well, it would be "wrong." .......

i highlighted the sections which i think are related to my concerns:

i think my 1st gen crx si was not given an achievable factor based on others that have much more experience with the car/ motor. plenty of folks have told me publicly and privately numbers of 31% or 30-33% and even 35% for an all out build. no one will commit to over 35% and certainly not over 40%.

i can't use on track performance at Road Atlanta since the ITC crx's have passed me. obviously i am not preparing/driving the car to its potential. although i have had one for 25 years, i have not developed it for 25 years. more like for one year 25 times.

the car is near its 5 year reclassification from ita to itb and i wanted it looked at again before that limit expires.

and yes, there would seem to be a case where the 12Valve Accords and Preludes are treated much differently from the 12V crx si's.

[JoshS]

the car is near its 5 year reclassification from ita to itb and i wanted it looked at again before that limit expires.

I have some bad news for you. The reclass was effective 1/1/05, I searched all of the old Fastracks to find it the other day. In other words, 2009 was its 5th year of competition in ITB. And I misspoke, the adjustments cannot be made after the end of the 4th year according to the rules.

[jjjanos]

Jeff, Josh is trying to do what ever he can to make inroads in getting things consistent. I think the BMW 320 issue was that the same basic car, the 2002, has the same engine and suspension, essentially, and to the Process, they are the same car. So, both got examined, and one was considered to be right on the Process weight, so the other was adjusted to match.

But it isn't making things more consistent. It is doing exactly the opposite. It moves us from a situation where cars have been classified under 3(?) different systems but at least every car classified under a regime was done so consistently to a world where cars are classified under the same number of systems plus those who have close dopple gangers.

Can the CRB/ITAC provide evidence that the original weights weren't set using different HP factors for some reason? That's not an error. Can the ITAC/CRB provide evidence that aero qualities weren't used either explicitly or implicitly when both cars were classified - if not, there is no error, just different regimes. Can the ITAC/CRB demonstrate that the differences in compression and brake sizes weren't originally considered and the lack of a written, consistent classification process aren't to blame? If not, there is no error, just difference in the gut-feeling factor used.


That is the purist way of looking at it, and I actually agree if we're going to be precise, believe it or not. Except ... there is a recourse that is okay with all parties involved, which is the handling of these things as errors.

Well I'm darn well not OK with it. My car and others are carrying too much weight too and we are getting punished because the CRB and ITAC are misusing the errors clause.


Maybe less pure but I think you might be the only one who has a problem with at least making some changes under the current ruleset. At least, you are the only one who I have actually heard voice a concern. I'm sure if the ITAC proposes a rule change then during the member input phase we'll hear from more people who would like to see no changes at all.

I have no problem with correcting errors under the current ruleset. The MR2 is an error - the math guy punched in the wrong number and that can be demonstrated. The BMW, however, has no evidence that the weight as set by the ITAC wasn't exactly what was intended under the then current loosey-goosey classification process.

[tom91ita]

I have some bad news for you. The reclass was effective 1/1/05, I searched all of the old Fastracks to find it the other day. In other words, 2009 was its 5th year of competition in ITB. And I misspoke, the adjustments cannot be made after the end of the 4th year according to the rules.

i appreciate your comments regarding the updates and nothing that follows is directed to you personally but i am a bit frustrated. this is very interesting and very disappointing. here is the note i sent to [email protected] November 28, 2008.

i have been submitting essentially variants of this with NO response and now i may be past the 4 year deadline. i would hope that submissions inside the 4th year and still not resolved (at least in mind, no response means still under consideration) could be considered.

and please note that i think the formula i presented below appears to be in error as the 50# i subtracted for "poor" suspension should be a 50# adder for DWB suspension. my car's weight compared to other 12V ITB hondas would be relative but it does slightly skew the backcalculated power factor i arrived at.




Dear CRB,

I believe that the basic formula as applied to Improved Touring needs to be revisited. It is my understanding that if a car was within 100 pounds of its target weight, no adjustments were made. I believe this is in error. These process weights should not be to the nearest 100#’s, they should be to the nearest 5 or 10#’s or something that is limited by the accuracy of the scales (e.g., + / - 0.5%).

I must also share that I think my car (1986 Honda CRX Si at 2130 #’s in ITB) was negatively impacted. I am unable to use any reasonable factor of the formula to arrive at my car’s existing weight.

It is my understanding that the Process for Targeted Weight as applied to ITB is as follows:


Stock Horsepower x Typical HP gain in IT trim x Weight to Power factor

ITB Weight to Power is 17 pounds per HP
Typical Gain in IT Trim is 25% so 1.25 factor

Weight Adjustments

Subtract 50 pounds if front wheel drive
Subtract 50 pounds if not strut suspension and independent rear suspension




Applying the above methods to my car results in the following:

91 x 1.25 x 17 = 1934 #’s

· - 50 #’s for FWD
· - 50 #’s for solid rear beam axle

This should result in a weight of 1834 #’s. Please compare this to the weight in the GCR of 2130 #’s. My car is nearly 300#’s over per the base process. By brief background, my car was classed at 1980 when in ITA. It was then given a 150 adder when dropped to ITB.


There are some that maintain that my car should have a HP gain % of 35% instead of the general 25%. If this is the case, my car would have a process weight of 1988 #’s.

It appears that my car is using the same factors and methods applied to its more successful younger brother, the 1988 CRX Si in ITA. The ’88 Si with its 16 Valve engine and OBD0 ignition has more to gain with a good valve job and ECU modifications. My car has the 12 valve head and a vacuum advance distributor.

I back-calculated the % gain that my engine would require to result in 2130 #’s and it is 44%. I do not believe that is achievable.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Tom

[Knestis]

I have cc's of Tom's request in my files dated 23 November 2008, and 09 October 2009 - same request.

He got swept up in the ill-fated "ITB Do-Over Pointess Effort" (DOPE) initiated with Bob Dowie last spring. As it was envisioned, since B represented our problem child collection (lots of years, lots of different technologies, lots of differences) the thought as I understood it was to use that as a testbed of sorts for an initiative to put all cars on a level playing field: To run them all through the same process.

The ITAC solicited data from members that resulted in documentation on some of the oddballs. I put together a new page on the "ITAC spreadsheet" (the committee has the last version I uploaded) with 81(!) make/model examples representing spec lines in the ITCS. We added torque values to the mix in an effort to see how they were distributed and compared to HP. We came up with distinctions between the various technologies and discussed preliminary ways to account for them consistently in the math...

Crucially, we also during this time finalized the PRACTICES that wrapped around the math. This is a point that the CRB critics UTTERLY FAILED TO COMPREHEND. There WAS a formula behind any proposed weight but there was, more importantly, a documented, transparent, prescribed, and repeatable way to run the Process itself, that could be counted on to minimize to the greatest extent the POOMA syndrome that has always been the biggest issue here.

On one call - Andy will remember this - we were asked to share the ITB list with the CRB. Bob D. explicitly asked whether the weights on that spreadsheet would be our recommendations. I jumped all over him to explain that NO - those were the preliminary values all run on a 1.25 power multiplier, and that unless/until we did due diligence and ran each make/model through the PRACTICES around the PROCESS, they were most assuredly NOT.

As we left that call, with him having that worksheet, I had a feeling we were dorked. It turned out that the freeze out - the CRB sitting on weight change recommendations made by the ITAC - started very shortly thereafter. I'm making an inference here but I am *very* confident that CRB members who were up to that point not involved (a la Drago, who GOT involved pretty quickly there) looked at that list, saw the number of cars with different weights and the magnitude of some of the differences (I'd included the then-current ITCS spec and delta between the old and "new" weights, to make it easy for them), and ABSENT ANY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE WERE REALLY DOING, crapped their panties.

I'm very confident (but again, inferring from evidence) that this position got support from some key Keane/Albin concern examples pointed out to them (a la the Audi, which was on there at 400 pounds less than its ITCS spec).

That's a long history lesson (with editorial content) to help explain why Tom's getting screwed if the argument is that his time window closed.

Perhaps most telling: Note that his 2009 submission came after (a) my resignation, and (b) the CRB edict that changes wouldn't be done. And BEFORE the CRB liaison's con call conversation with Jake that they should get back to business...

(A PS here - I mentioned to Josh in an email last night that he needs to be cognizant of the fact that, in the spirit of openness, my policy is now officially that anything anyone tells me is public. I'm not a committee member so am not privileged in any way.)

...so given retroactive application of that rule, here's the response Tom got from Jim Drago (EDIT - in mid-November 2009) after an ITAC member pointed out that, under the November mandate, it wasn't likely his request was going to gain traction:

Tom
No problem, I think you might not find the ITAC all that anxious to do much changing as they are still upset with the CRB etc. If you don't get a satifactory reply, let me know.
Jim

Welcome to really awesome evidence of the ongoing CRB problem that led to the DOPE, freeze out, and Great Exodus. Tell the ITAC one thing, and tell the members another - depending on the agenda du jour and who you're talking to. Act unilaterally rather than giving recommendations a comprehensive look and fair up or down vote. Hide changes to ad hoc committee recommendations from the membership. Discourage public conversation but use back-channel email liberally, to further internal - sometimes individual - agendas. Channel information (so power) through just a couple of individuals. Allow committee members with vested interests in the CRB decisions to not only vote, but to be the source of "expert information" to that committee.

Seriously, people. This isn't Tammany Hall.

Josh - If the ITAC doesn't legitimately run that ITB CRX through the process and make a recommendation to the CRB, the group will have failed a crucial test of your legitimacy. If the CRB doesn't like the recommendation and changes it, that's both within their purview and evidence to the members of the practices being applied by that body. Regardless...

Just. Get. It. Fixed.

K

EDIT: Found another email. After I called him on the above, Mr. Drago responded with the following (21 November 2009):

When I had communicated your request to an ITAC member, they didnt realize your car being reclassed into B in 2006, thus adjustments were allowed if ITAC decided the change was needed. We had a misunderstanding and I took a misundertanding/miscommunication with one of the ITAC members as a possible reluctance to to look at your issue. That was not that case, my goal was only to make sure you received an answer to your request and were satisfied with the response you received.

There's your permission, Josh.

[gran racing]

Josh - If the ITAC doesn't legitimately run that ITB CRX through the process and make a recommendation to the CRB, the group will have failed a crucial test of your legitimacy. If the CRB doesn't like the recommendation and changes it, that's both within their purview and evidence to the members of the practices being applied by that body. Regardless...

Just. Get. It. Fixed.


I was following you up till this Kirk. In fact, it would be even more annoying to see some cars receive special re-consideration. Treat cars and their drivers fairly. All. Not just ones classed within the past 5 years. If there are Volvos or whatever other car out there that were classed many years ago and membership still wants to race them, treat them fairly.

The ITAC and CRB need to dig themselves out of a big hole. Membership does not trust them and why should they? With the CRB, it isn't just about IT. Similar issues are happening in a much broader scope. Much to my shock <insert sarcasm>, it is happening with other advisory committees outside of IT. Yet somehow we keep riding on a "things are pretty good".

Josh, thank you for continuing to post here and working to move forward with things. You're in a tough position but continuing to communicate does help.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The biggest goal of the current ITAC should be the change of the ITCS language that the CRB is using to shackle class parity.

Get that done and the category will be on the fast-track to an easy future.

[tom91ita]

would it possible for the ITAC to post the results it had from the evaluations and assessments, BOLD emphasis mine (per the 2009 GCR) for various ITB cars?



At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a "performance compensation adjustment" shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What that paragraph means Tom is that the ITAC / CRB will keep their ear to the ground for potential overdogs and correct them if they see them (BMW 325). Nothing more, nothing less.

[Charlie Broring]

Well I'm darn well not OK with it. My car and others are carrying too much weight too and we are getting punished because the CRB and ITAC are misusing the errors clause.

Jeff, you have one of the 3 or 4 most capable ITB cars. If the Process justifies a weight reduction for you car I would conclude the Process is screwed up.

Justified or not, yours is another example of growing discontent and turmoil in ITB that is doing the class participation no good.

In my opinion the ITAC would do well using a bigger dose on on track performance evaluation. If nothing more it would show where the the classification Process is working and where it needs adjustment. The ITAC is dead on track developing the classification process formula. However the quest for "Open and transparent" and avoiding the occasional competition adjustment are getting in the way of the ultimate goal of fair and equal competition.

Also, the CRB needs to realize that IT has evolved quite a bit form the early days and the "No guarantee of competitiveness" no longer serves the class.

[JeffYoung]

Tom is correct that the language is mandatory (shall) and we didn't do it. Again, another example of where that clause does not line up with the reality of how we were doing things.

That clause is a cluster. As Andy said, it needs to be fixed before any real progress can be made.

[tom91ita]

What that paragraph means Tom is that the ITAC / CRB will keep their ear to the ground for potential overdogs and correct them if they see them (BMW 325). Nothing more, nothing less.

Andy, that is fine.

the point i was trying to make is that if i am excluded by the rules for the four years clause, then the rules that state "shall be evaluated" should be more than "group seems okay"

[Andy Bettencourt]

In my opinion the ITAC would do well using a bigger dose on on track performance evaluation. If nothing more it would show where the the classification Process is working and where it needs adjustment.

Please outline for us how you would evaluate on-track performance and how you would validate your findings.

Really.

[tom91ita]

Please outline for us how you would evaluate on-track performance and how you would validate your findings.

Really.

i agree that there is no good practical way to do this consistently but it is in the rules:


the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated.

if we can't do it, why is it in the rules?

[JeffYoung]

It is unfortunately a "know it when we see it" proposition. In rare cases, where cars are so visibly overdogs (the ITS E36 and the ITA CRX are the only two examples I recall) that we take a harder look at the power numbers.

But we don't adjust based solely on visible on track performance. We use it as a trigger to find out if there is something wrong in the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i agree that there is no good practical way to do this consistently but it is in the rules:



if we can't do it, why is it in the rules?

It can be done. Just depends on your definition of evaluation. Again, the practical application of the rule is to 'pay attention' for class overdogs. Cars that are having an adverse effect on 'class equity'.

[EV]

No, they don't. The base classing and weights are a mystery, known only to the PT committee (which to my last knowledge was 1 guy, but that was a couple years ago, don't know if anything has changed.)
Base class assignment methodology isn't published, but weight is OEM listed weight (at least from what I can tell).

From what I read base class is based on OEM engine HP, brakes (size, type, w/wo ABS), FWD/RWD, you know all the things you would expect. If it turns out a car is a class killer, they will add points for specific cars that are tweeners... The power to weight cap also keeps things very even. Helps prevent people with large wallets from creating killer engines since you can get to the p/wt caps with bolt ones, cams and ECU mods. My junk yard motor can make IT power with a $500 set of cams, instead of $5000 pro engine rebuild which only lasts 2 seasons.

I am seriously considering which sand box I am going to play in...

[gran racing]

In my opinion the ITAC would do well using a bigger dose on on track performance evaluation.

Charlie, becareful of what you wish for. I have no idea how well built your car is, so this isn't said in any disrespect.

Take your car, have a TOP notch build done, pour $30,000 into with boat loads of development, maybe some factory support and engineering help, numerous test days, then have an absolute fantastic driver behind the wheel. YOUR car would get weight quite quickly. In fact, almost all of ours would in that scenario.

There are also other cars where people have gone beyond the rules such as putting in cams. There's quite a bit which can be done with some of the BMW 2002s related to cams, and getting to them for a protest isn't simple. That's just one example since I know the subject has come up in the past, but can easily be applied to any car. Now using on track performance, the legal cars are getting a penalty. Then there are days where everything just falls into place such as temps, cars to bump draft or even just draft with, and so forth.

A more personal example for you and know we've discussed this in the past (at least most of it). Summit point last year. Any idea how many new tires I was using? Not talking about 3 or 4 cycles old, but freshly mounted at the track. After an amazing battle with Martin, he came up to me after and said this next race is yours and bumped me on shoulder. (I did tell him the he better be racing me!) We worked together during that race and the times showed it. Having swapped the tires for old ones, and/or not having him to work with ontrack performance would have been different. Oh, then after the race our cars were weighed. No one torn engines down to look at legality.

In some categories on track performance can be more useful when there's a significant number (1.8 vs 1.6 SMs come to mind). We don't have that in IT. Prep and driver levels also vary greatly.

Use it as a trigger to look closer and that's it.

ps - while my Prelude was to stand losing weight when reviewed, I'm not entirely sure it would make it faster in a sprint race as the weight would have come off the rear of the car. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have the option though.

[jjjanos]

Jeff, you have one of the 3 or 4 most capable ITB cars. If the Process justifies a weight reduction for you car I would conclude the Process is screwed up.

Justified or not, yours is another example of growing discontent and turmoil in ITB that is doing the class participation no good.

Charlie, I would say that the CRX, the 142 and the 2002 -- when prepared to the same preperation level -- are about equivalent and I can say that, based on the process, the weights of the CRX and the 142 are too heavy. Can't say for certain for the 2002 since the innerweb gives me wild stock HP numbers.

CRX Official weight: 2130
CRX: 91 * 1.25 * 17 = 1934
CRX: 91 * 1.35 * 17 = 2088

Let's assume that the handling characteristics of a solid rear axle car are so superior as to offset the handicap of being FWD. The CRX still has drum rears and, relatively speaking, not enough torque to pull a string through whip cream.

That leaves the car somewhere between 50 and 200 pounds too heavy.

V142 Official weight:2640
V142: 118 * 1.2 *17 = 2407, call it 2405

I wouldn't call a 142 a sleek, road hugging sex pot, but it does have enough torque to drill through a diamond, so we'll say that the torque advantage cancels out the M1 Abram factor.

That leaves the car somewhere like 230+ pounds too heavy.

Advantage, CRX right now and I'd be perfectly happy if they applied a mohel rule and lopped off the top 50 pounds from your car and left mine where it is at....

BUT

VW Golf 2.0 Official Weight: 2350
VW G2: 115 * 1.3 * 17 = 2542

Now, we've both seen one raced and I think we would agree that, while the car is FWD, the brake system so large that it has its own zip code and the torque that allowed it to keep up with a certain cam-advantaged car cancels out the FWD subtraction.

So, that puts the car about 190 lbs too light - by the math the CRB says is used.

We've seen what that car, which has an ARRC-stamp of legality, can do with its current driving style and we've both heard what other drivers were capable of doing in the car when taking it easy on a test day. You saw what the G2 did to a brand-new Troxell-built CRX engine driven by someone who could run at nine-tenths, in the rain while wearing a blindfold at Summit

.. so, from where I sit...

your car, my car and the Bavarian mob are all way too heavy and, unless and until weight gets thrown on the Golf, we all might as well go run STU.


Also, the CRB needs to realize that IT has evolved quite a bit form the early days and the "No guarantee of competitiveness" no longer serves the class.

Ding.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why are you using 1.2 for the Volvo and 1.3 for the Golf?

[JeffYoung]

Because it suits his agenda.

[jjjanos]

Why are you using 1.2 for the Volvo and 1.3 for the Golf?

Because that's what Mr. Dowd says is the process in use..

1.20 or 20% for 2V Carburete
1.25 or 25% for 2V FI cars or older ECU cars
1.30 or 30% for Multi-Valve FI cars or Modern ECU cars
1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains
http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1 (http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1)

See post #2

Unless, I've missed something on Charlie's car, I could swear it had a Carb and I'm pretty darn certain that there is no ECU on it.

The G2 certainly isn't an older ECU vehicle - it's a 90s vehicle -- so it either gets a 1.3 or 1.35+.

[jjjanos]

Because it suits his agenda.

No sir, because the Chair of the CRB posted on the official SCCA forum the classification process used for the great alignment and strongly implied that none of the later regimes are in use.

And thus we return to the three adjectives I have used earlier in this thread for the CRB.....

[shwah]

Why are you using 1.2 for the Volvo and 1.3 for the Golf?
Probably because the 1.8 Golf2 gets a 1.3 (though I have still never seen data to support this), and the 2.0 should make similar gains to the 1.8.

In reality I would be OK with the G3 just being run at 25% at least. But:dead_horse:

It is what it is, and I will be back to run when my stuff is faster than it was last time.

[shwah]

Because that's what Mr. Dowd says is the process in use..

1.20 or 20% for 2V Carburete
1.25 or 25% for 2V FI cars or older ECU cars
1.30 or 30% for Multi-Valve FI cars or Modern ECU cars
1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains
http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1 (http://www.sccabb.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=8861&PN=1)

See post #2

Unless, I've missed something on Charlie's car, I could swear it had a Carb and I'm pretty darn certain that there is no ECU on it.

The G2 certainly isn't an older ECU vehicle - it's a 90s vehicle -- so it either gets a 1.3 or 1.35+.
Vocabulary check: In the VW fanboi world G2 = A2 = Golf 2 = 1780cc counter flow 8v head
G3 = A3 = 1980cc cross flow 8v head with thin valve stems
Neither is a multi valve head. Both are available with electronic fuel injection. The 2 liter uses a modern mass airflow device, the 1.8 uses two different types of flapper/trap door air measuring devices.

What you are neglecting is that when something is 'known' about a motor that is taken into account. Just don't ask what the definition of 'known' is. It seems to be a 'we know it when we see it' kind of thing, which is my sticking point with the whole thing.

[lateapex911]

The Process Bob posted was an early version, and was a flow chart. One step in the flow chart was "Review and discuss if it makes sense, and return to areas where it doesn't", or something similar.

So, in pracice, we saw that those starting points were making little sense, and we used the 'return" function to get closer to reality, and 25% became SOP in most cases. As a matter of fact, we discussed 30 or 35% as a POS factor. POS stood for, well, you know. Basically old emission era cars that, when you remove air pumps, horrible exhaust manifolds, and carb issues, they REALLY wake up.

Further, and this was a bit before my time, but the 142 was used as a bogey.

IMO, the G3# is 50 light because I think it got a rear axle break, which I don't think should be used.

[mc-integra111]

1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains

OK, here is where I think the biggest problem is. General assumptions like this are just wrong. Some of the Honda VTEC motors will likely gain much less than comparable non-VTEC cars. For example, I think my B18A makes good process power improvements (not great, but good). However, the B18C5 (Type R motor) is likey to make much smaller improvements as that thing is basically built to the hilt from the factory.

[Knestis]

OK, here is where I think the biggest problem is. General assumptions like this are just wrong. Some of the Honda VTEC motors will likely gain much less than comparable non-VTEC cars. For example, I think my B18A makes good process power improvements (not great, but good). However, the B18C5 (Type R motor) is likey to make much smaller improvements as that thing is basically built to the hilt from the factory.

...which is precisely why the ITAC c.2007-2009 didn't apply that assumption, and v.2 codified not using it. The S2000 is the poster child for "scary engine architecture" but probably won't gain much at all because it's highly optimized from the factory.

K

[lateapex911]

OK, here is where I think the biggest problem is. General assumptions like this are just wrong. Some of the Honda VTEC motors will likely gain much less than comparable non-VTEC cars. For example, I think my B18A makes good process power improvements (not great, but good). However, the B18C5 (Type R motor) is likey to make much smaller improvements as that thing is basically built to the hilt from the factory.

See my above comments...those factors are from an early version that was written before my time.
I'm inferring here that the reason those factors came to play is because, at the time, the big bad boys of IT were teh BMW E36, and the CRX in ITA. Both cars were unique in their ability to exceed factory rated hp by a significant amount, but it wasn't due to architecture. But, I think the authors of that document were reacting to those two cars, and that Process was the result. SOP hasn't followed those recommendations for years.

[Ron Earp]

. The S2000 is the poster child for "scary engine architecture" but probably won't gain much at all because it's highly optimized from the factory.

K

Don't forget the extra scary "V8". Boy that one was a lot of fun with the ITAC/CRB.

[jjjanos]

Mr. Dowd strongly implied that any versions of the process after TGRA were void and null, or at least I infered it.

Let's run the numbers again using the 1.25/1.30/1.35 multipliers

First Gen CRX: 91 * 1.25 * 17 = 1935 (OW: 2130) Pre-add error: 195
"Newer" Golf : 115 * 1.25 * 17 = 2445 (OW: 2350) Pre-add error: -95

Now that imples that a CRX with it's poor torque and much smaller brakes has either a suspension or other advantage that requires a 290 pound weight advantage for the Newer Golf.

First Gen CRX: 91 * 1.30 * 17 = 2010 (OW: 2130) Pre-add error: 120
"Newer" Golf : 115 * 1.30 * 17 = 2445 (OW: 2350) Pre-add error: -190

Darn, thought we had it when the CRX weight increased, but so does the Golf. The CRX is a 310 pound better car now.

So, let's take the highest multiplier for the CRX - 1.35 and the lowest for the newer Golfs (1.25) ...

CRX: 2130 (OW) - 2090 (Pre-adder weight) = 40 pounds too heavy
"Golf": 2350 (OW) - 2445 (Pre-adder weight) = 95 pounds too light.

So, the difference between the two translates into throwing 135 pounds onto the CRX. Let me see... both are FWD cars so it cannot be that. Torque? I'd say advantage Golf, but let's call it a draw. Brakes? Obviously I need to talk to someone because I fail to see the advantage of rear-wheel drums over huge rear discs. Suspension? Nope.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have yet to be proven wrong on what I remember vs other and I can tell you that what Bob posted was an early version. We used 25% as a default when nothing was known. The real issues that are surfacing now are the acuracy of the 'what we know' in ITB-land.

V.2's two biggest changes were the % for FWD instead of a set number and the evidentiary and documentary standards applied to 'what we know'.

V.2 solves all these effing issues people.

[Charlie Broring]

Further, and this was a bit before my time, but the 142 was used as a bogey.

.
A really good legal Volvo 142 makes 10% more flywheel HP then the factory rating. If this is the basis of the ITB Process no wonder the system is wonky.

[jjjanos]

I have yet to be proven wrong on what I remember vs other and I can tell you that what Bob posted was an early version. We used 25% as a default when nothing was known.

Andy,

I know whose memory is sharper. I know what was posted was superceeded. The question is why doesn't the chair of the CRB know that or, at the very least, why is an outdated method being posted as the current method?

Got to use what the head honcho says is being used.


V.2 solves all these effing issues people.

Which would be nice if it was what the CRB claimed to be using.

[JeffYoung]

V2 is what the ITAC has used, and is using (for new cars), and therefore defacto what the CRB is using when it has approved new classifications and adjustments.

The only part of the "old assumptions" on power gains that gets used still (and I personally disagree with it) is all 16v motors in ITB get 30%. Everything else is 25% default unless proven otherwise by actual data.

[shwah]

Mr Brakes? Obviously I need to talk to someone because I fail to see the advantage of rear-wheel drums over huge rear discs. Suspension? Nope.

Seriously? You want to consider rear brakes on fwd race cars when classing them.

In VW land we spend as much effort trying to keep the rears from working as we do optimizing the fronts.

IMO the G3 is about 100 under, or it is 50 under and most others are 50 over.
I don't know enough about the CRX to comment on what it should or shouldn't be capable of. Maybe a healthy dose of uncovering more 'what we know' about that motor in IT trim is in order.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The only part of the "old assumptions" on power gains that gets used still (and I personally disagree with it) is all 16v motors in ITB get 30%. Everything else is 25% default unless proven otherwise by actual data.

Actually, this is wrong too. If you were to go by that old first-cut sheet, EVERYTHING 16V is supposed to get classed at 30%. In EVERY class. Just simply didn't happen like that. In every class 25% was used. When the first 16V car that was to be classed for ITB hit (MR2), all of the sudden 30% was 'what we used'.

I don't care who you are or what your recollection, this is what happened. I can go back and look at every ITA car that was classed or reclassed and prove 25% was used. I ask those who fought for 30% on the MR2, where was that 'fight' when every other car 16V was being classed?

Ugh.

[JeffYoung]

It's not wrong for what happens now. The default 30% gain for 16v motors is ITB only.

Where I agree with you is that makes no sense, and I also agree that it appears (I was not on the ITAC at the time) that the 30%/16v was not used as a default in other classes.

Ugh, I agree.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's not wrong for what happens now. The default 30% gain for 16v motors is ITB only.

Where I agree with you is that makes no sense, and I also agree that it appears (I was not on the ITAC at the time) that the 30%/16v was not used as a default in other classes.

Ugh, I agree.

That is a completely made-up piece of crap rule. WHY IN THE WORLD DOES 30% APPLY IN ITB ONLY????? It makes zero sense, made zero sense and is a big pile of FAIL. Someone needs to stand up and fix it. (or at the lease apply it equally across all classes!!!)

The best leaders can admit when they made a mistake, fix it, and prevent it from happening again. That is what I want in a CRB/Ad Hoc.

[jjjanos]

Seriously? You want to consider rear brakes on fwd race cars when classing them.

Somebody must have because the ITAC's own math says the ITB CRX is a heck of a better car than the VWs. It's got to be suspension, brakes or torque.


In VW land we spend as much effort trying to keep the rears from working as we do optimizing the fronts.

For the ITC CRX, the rears are useful for keeping the car from rolling off the jackstands when the front is in the air. For the ITB car - same sized front calipers as the ITC car, the extra weight and extra speed, the drums come into play.


IMO the G3 is about 100 under, or it is 50 under and most others are 50 over.
I don't know enough about the CRX to comment on what it should or shouldn't be capable of. Maybe a healthy dose of uncovering more 'what we know' about that motor in IT trim is in order.

Won't matter... neither an error nor omission as defined by the CRB.

[JoshS]

That is a completely made-up piece of crap rule. WHY IN THE WORLD DOES 30% APPLY IN ITB ONLY????? It makes zero sense, made zero sense and is a big pile of FAIL.

Personal opinion coming here: All cars in any one class should be treated the same, as long as the significant elements are roughly the same. Adders and subtractors exists purely to take into account things that are exceptional for the class in question.

That 5% difference for multivalve engines is effectively just an adder, albeit a percentage-based one instead of a fixed-value one, like FWD is in Process V2. Based on the rough "average ITB car", its value is +/- 90lbs.

So the question is, is a multivalve engine something that's exceptional enough in ITB to warrant an adder? It does appear to be a fairly abnormal trait for an ITB car.

But despite that, In my personal opinion, it still doesn't warrant an adder. That's because the advantage gained by the fancy head is already accounted for in the published horsepower figure.

It's the same way I feel about any engine-related adder. Adders should be to cover exceptional items not covered by that stock horsepower number.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So the question is, is a multivalve engine something that's exceptional enough in ITB to warrant an adder? It does appear to be a fairly abnormal trait for an ITB car.



But it doesn't fit the 'adder' guidlines. Meaning, who cares if it's normal or abnormal? If a multivalve engine is going to get 30% in ITB, it should get it in all the IT classes - because the assumption is that it is the REASON for more power. That trait doesn't change when you hop a class.

ITB ITAC guys....you really need to look in the mirror here.

[Chip42]

Someone needs to stand up and fix it.

From what I gather, that may be difficult for some of the responisble members.

complete agreement in kind, though - this mess needs to be cleaned up, somehow. I don't see why a class by class rework simillar to "the great realignment" is so feared. is there honestly fear of mass resentment by the membership for fixing the current state of affairs? I find that difficult (but not impossible) to believe.

[JeffYoung]

Solely my opinion:

1. The higher ups see it (a complete processing of all cars) as a "mass comp adjustment" that is not appropriate for IT. Under our existing rules, there is more merit to that argument than you would think.

2. I have some concern about reprocessing every car, personally. It's easy to do the process math on a mid 90s Honda, or a 12a rotary. But try to find accurate specs on say an early 70s Fiat, or a 1968 Corvair. Lots of errors could be made, and it will be a Herculean task. Josh, however, has come up with a great (partial) solution, which is to simply delete the weights for older, problematic cars that aren't raced and allow the weight to be relisted (via the process, and research) if someone requests it.

When I first joined the ITAC this issue -- whether to process all cars or not -- was the biggest open item. I think we were heading towards a "reprocess" with Josh's mod when we were first tasked with trying it out on ITB.

I remember being initially opposed to the whole "reprocess everything" idea given the amount of work it seemed to be, and the potential for error. But, I think the events of the last six months make it clear (to me) that that is exactly what we should do.

1. Publish the process.

2. Give it the force and effect of a rule, binding on "future" ITACs.

3. Use it to set the weight on all cars.



From what I gather, that may be difficult for some of the responisble members.

complete agreement in kind, though - this mess needs to be cleaned up, somehow. I don't see why a class by class rework simillar to "the great realignment" is so feared. is there honestly fear of mass resentment by the membership for fixing the current state of affairs? I find that difficult (but not impossible) to believe.

[Chip42]

Dropping existing classifications due to lack of participation has precedent in Production. this would certinaly prune the list, making the herculean task of going through an entire category a bit more manageable.

I for one wouldn't formally suggest a full group reclass as it's obviously a TON of work. But I think that a valid member request for a reclassification or correction using updated REAL WORLD information such as dyno plots or flow bench numbers or even on track results (if only to demonstrate the inequity not to prove it) should be considered reasonable by everyone involved. this is where the current ITCS language stands in the way from what I can see. and from what I gather, the CRB is not interested in helping change it.

But what shop manual do you copy pages from to support a request to change the rules??? :shrug:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mmmm, fun! Let me play!


Solely my opinion:

1. The higher ups see it (a complete processing of all cars) as a "mass comp adjustment" that is not appropriate for IT. Under our existing rules, there is more merit to that argument than you would think.

Pffft. Crock. Yes, it will adjust the competition level of any class. But so will classing a new car in the exact same way. Don't let anyone hide behind that excuse. Push to define 'comp adjustment'. Bringing cars in line with each other based on specs is SOOOO different than making an adjustment based on results.


2. I have some concern about reprocessing every car, personally. It's easy to do the process math on a mid 90s Honda, or a 12a rotary. But try to find accurate specs on say an early 70s Fiat, or a 1968 Corvair. Lots of errors could be made, and it will be a Herculean task. Josh, however, has come up with a great (partial) solution, which is to simply delete the weights for older, problematic cars that aren't raced and allow the weight to be relisted (via the process, and research) if someone requests it.

^^^ This.


I remember being initially opposed to the whole "reprocess everything" idea given the amount of work it seemed to be, and the potential for error. But, I think the events of the last six months make it clear (to me) that that is exactly what we should do.

1. Publish the process.

2. Give it the force and effect of a rule, binding on "future" ITACs.

3. Use it to set the weight on all cars.

Of course this is the solution. Add the Process date in the notes section of the ITCS. Reprocess' will not be considered unless proof that an error was made in the calculation.

[lateapex911]

Mmmm, fun! Let me play!



Pffft. Crock. Yes, it will adjust the competition level of any class. But so will classing a new car in the exact same way. Don't let anyone hide behind that excuse. Push to define 'comp adjustment'. Bringing cars in line with each other based on specs is SOOOO different than making an adjustment based on results.



.

THATS a major issue, as my definition of "Comp adjustment" is "adjusting a car because I think I've seen it be too competitive or not competitive enough".

But, the CRB tells us that any change is a comp adjustment....I've gone round and round on this with Dowie.

[JoshS]

this is where the current ITCS language stands in the way from what I can see. and from what I gather, the CRB is not interested in helping change it.

I don't think that's true, I think there will be support from the CRB.

[lateapex911]

Andy,

I know whose memory is sharper. I know what was posted was superceeded. The question is why doesn't the chair of the CRB know that or, at the very least, why is an outdated method being posted as the current method?

Got to use what the head honcho says is being used.



Which would be nice if it was what the CRB claimed to be using.

Why is it being used now??? Revisionist history is one reason, althought thats not a reason, actually.

WHY...that's the question. Kirks point about the ITB spreadsheet, and the Audi debacle triggering a giant pull back suggests those in charge were very uncomfortable, suddenly. But i really don't know the true motivations. We were told at teh time that the BoD had come down on them for operating outside the rulebook.....but then, I asked BoD guys and got blank stares. We were then told that the CRB WOULD get in trouble for operating outside the rules. Even though we'd been doing exactly that with full CRB knowledge and involvement for 5 years.

SOMEthing pissed SOMEbody off, that's for sure.

[gran racing]

I don't see why a class by class rework simillar to "the great realignment" is so feared.Aren't things good enough right now? IT seems pretty darn healthy to me. (Not my words or feelings)

Then there are the Charlies of the world who feel that just because a driver & car combo is fast, they shouldn't have the car evaluated based on what it's potential actually is. Or if the darn process was actually published for everyone including him to see, all of this would make a lot more sense.

I've always thought that approaching this on a request basis would be the best approach. If Tom who drives a CRX cares enough to write in, do it. If other drivers of another car don't, then don't worry about it. Do publish something in the GCR noting when it was reviewed again. Lets not forget that at least in ITB, a BUNCH of cars have already been reviewed. Even if the process has been changed a bit (no idea how close it currently is to when those cars were looked at again), use that as a guide to determine what cars should receive priority. MR2? Duh. I was so smart to distract Guilick on that call!! LOL :D

There's also irony in all of this since after the IT review was stopped, there was a certain car make which received an interesting brake upgrade allowance just in time for the runoffs.