December Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/07-fastrack-dec.pdf


A few things of note:

- SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation are REQUIRED now. Underwear required unless FIA or SFI 3.2A/5 or higher.
- On-board fire systems minimums changing 1/1/09
- FIA belts must have expiration date (no more 5 years, as I read it)
- 2-inch shoulder harnesses for HANS deleted?
- ECUs free as described prior.
- Dodge Shelby Charger to ITB

- (Proposed)VIN rule NLA, effective 1/1/09 (why not 08???)
- (Effective 12/1/07) Triumph TR6 to ITA
- (Rejected) Publish the weight process (Miskoe)
- (Rejected) Allow jacking points (Miskoe)

[BlueStreak]

I'm all for changing the VIN rule - but isn't this going too far:

Improved Touring
Item 1. Effective 1/1/09, change section 9.1.3.C by deleting the fifth paragraph as follows:
The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determine the model and type
for competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required.


It would appear to me that we now have no formal method of discerning one vehicle from another - or is this covered elsewhere?

[Greg Amy]

It would appear to me that we now have no formal method of discerning one vehicle from another...[/b]
You're assuming the VIN provides an easy method of discerning the vehicle now.

We police it as we always do: inspecting the equipment appropriate for the car/class. If it's an Integra, we make sure that they don't have a GS-R engine and trans in there, just as we do now. The VIN requirement doesn't change that, nor does it currently stop people who want to from cheating.

We have well-vetted this discussion in the past, and there are two distinct camps on this. Here's but a few.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=6525 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6525)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=12640 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12640)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=10012 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10012)
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=9788 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9788)

I'll start a new topic on this, so this one doesn't get muddied up. - GA

[Knestis]

http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/07-fastrack-dec.pdf
A few things of note:

- SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation are REQUIRED now. Underwear required unless FIA or SFI 3.2A/5 or higher. ...[/b]
Seriously? So my 3.5 layer Nomex III, PBI, Nomex batt, 3.5 oz. Nomex tricot suit isn't safe enough now?

Argh.

K

[Greg Amy]

Seriously? So my 3.5 layer Nomex III, PBI, Nomex batt, 3.5 oz. Nomex tricot suit isn't safe enough now?[/b]
Best I can tell, yes. New rule reads as follows (effective 11/1/07, which means if someone used something else at the ARRC they were illegal...any typos are my own...)

Effective 11/1/07: Change section 9.3.19.A as follows:
Driving suits that effectively cover the body from the neck to the ankles and wrists. One piece suits are highly recommended. All suits shall bear an SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation. Underwear of fire resistant material shall be used except with suits carrying FIA standard 8856-2000 or
SFI 3-2A/5 or higher (e.g., /10, /15, /20) Certification Patch.

[Knestis]

Well, that sucks. Gives me even more reason to really dislike SFI. Thanks, Club.

K

[trhoppe]

- 2-inch shoulder harnesses for HANS deleted?

[/b]

Negative. You just have to use the 3" belts if you are NOT wearing a HANS.

-Tom

[vr6guy]

the only patch I can find on my barely used suit is as follows..... FiA NORME 1986/1986 STANDARD
04.257.CSAI.99

Someone tell me that my suit is up to standards?!

[mbuskuhl]

Thank you Miskoe for trying on the jacking points. This has been debated on here before as to whether or not you can fab something that may or may not be legal. We need jacking points in the GCR. It is a necessary item to keep from destroying your undercarriage. A jack, even the low profile aluminum one I have, will not get to my front crossmember or rear differential. Expecting me to roll onto some 2 x material each time I need to lift the car is a bit much.

There are 16 new glossary terms, including the words "metal", "removal", "addition", I guess we may need shift knob defined after all.

[JeffYoung]

Triumph TR6 in ITA! Woohoo baby!

I see Spec Triumph as the next big thing!

[lateapex911]

It'll be a throw down, and if any of 'em can make the sprint race distance, we could be impressed!

[Greg Amy]

(Two posts moved to VIN Rule discussion...thought they were good points and should be added there...)

[dj10]

Triumph TR6 in ITA! Woohoo baby!

I see Spec Triumph as the next big thing! [/b]



I can see it now...a 10 lap race at VIR with 30 Triump's racing and not a one makes it to the finish line. :D Of course Jeff you weren't entered. ;)

[JeffYoung]

Sorry for the threadjack....

I ran an "All Triumph" Vintage Race (the Gold Cup) at VIR in 05 I think. ABout 40 'Umphs of all types. Race was six laps. I think maybe a 1/3 of the field did not finish. I turned out of Oak Tree and went down the back stretch on the last lap with some TR4 or something running like 15:1 compression. Car's motor exploded in front of me. It looked like the nascar in car stuff, so much smoke I couldn't see, couldn't tell where he was or even where I was.

Spec Triumph, probably not a good idea......

Back on topic.

[DavidM]

http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/07-fastrack-dec.pdf
A few things of note:

- ECUs free as described prior.
[/b]
Let the games begin.



- (Rejected) Publish the weight process (Miskoe)
[/b]
Glad I'm not the only one. Maybe if people keep requesting this they'll get the message.



- (Rejected) Allow jacking points (Miskoe)
[/b]
Open ECUs, but no jacking points? Whatever. I'm having my cage modified to have the plate extending down on the inside that touches the floor, but isn't welded to the floor so therefore isn't considered an attachment point.

David

[leawil]

"The engine management computer may be altered or replaced. A throttle position sensor and its wiring may be added or replaced. A MAP sensor and its wiring may be added. Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units."

OK, calling all rules experts (Andy, Greg, et al). Does this mean I can replace the stock AFM in my '94 Miata with something else that is "equivalent", but has less flow resistance? I.e., is the definition of "equivalent" as ambiguous as it appears? (depends on what your definition of "is" is?) :unsure:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Lea,

Re-read your bolded point out loud.

To add (but not pertaining to your question because the answer is IN your post)

equiv·a·lent
1: corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function

[Greg Amy]

Lea, read that again:

Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units. - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me make a statement on the publication of the 'process'. Since it is not a formula, it is very hard to get it into a written format that can be digested without creating the need for additional questions and answers. The baseline for the process has been published on this site multiple times. The subjective nature of the final steps in determining minimum weight are such that it is impossible for individuals outside the system to 'plug in' their specs and come up with the same numbers on a consistant basis.

I have run people through the process on their cars and all becomes well, but it takes some 'spainin. Couple that with the fact (also well documented here) that if a car was not 100lbs or more 'outside' the process when we evaluated the category, it did not get adjusted up or down. THEN there are the cars that we didn't WANT to correct based on, for lack of a better term, fear. Not enough info, not enough participation etc. We would address those as members requested a look.

Bottom line? We think it would create more confusion than contentment, even if it could be done in one writing. Matt sent me an e-mail about the 'rejection' and I offered to explain what he needed me to at an event or over the phone. It's not rocket science, it's pretty cool actually, but making it 'readable' is not a great idea - because it can't be done IMHO.

I know this may be difficult to understand but I can't write it any better. Maybe Jake can.

[vr6guy]

the only patch I can find on my barely used suit is as follows..... FiA NORME 1986/1986 STANDARD
04.257.CSAI.99

Someone tell me that my suit is up to standards?!

lookin for help here.......

[steve b]

The subjective nature of the final steps in determining minimum weight are such that it is impossible for individuals outside the system to 'plug in' their specs and come up with the same numbers on a consistant basis.

[/b]

My guess is that's exactly what is bothering people and the reason they want to see it published... to see what subjectivity is applied to their car vs. that applied to other cars.

[Greg Amy]

Someone tell me that my suit is up to standards?![/b]
As I read the new rule: no.

[vr6guy]

even if i wear the fire retardent long inderwear?

[Andy Bettencourt]

My guess is that's exactly what is bothering people and the reason they want to see it published... to see what subjectivity is applied to their car vs. that applied to other cars. [/b]

I fully understand the motive for the request, and I accomodate everyone when I talk with them.

[Gary L]

even if i wear the fire retardent long inderwear?
[/b] The way I read it, that is correct... even if you wear the undies, your suit is no longer legal. Basically, if it doesn't have the SFI 3-2A/1 (or higher) patch or the FIA 8856-2000 patch, you can't use it, underwear or no.

[vr6guy]

I just got off the phone from OMP headquarters, and all suits made from 2000 and up are the same homoligation. So my suit is fine! yay!

[benspeed]

SUCCESS - the SPO car is now GT1

The Triumph re-class was a major coup! Nice play, Jeff!

[dickita15]

I just got off the phone from OMP headquarters, and all suits made from 2000 and up are the same homoligation. So my suit is fine! yay!
[/b]
get it is writing or get them to send you a patch to put on the suit.

[vr6guy]

http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/07-fastrack-dec.pdf
A few things of note:

- SFI 3.2A/1 or higher certification label or FIA 8856-2000 homologation are REQUIRED now. Underwear required unless FIA or SFI 3.2A/5 or higher.
- On-board fire systems minimums changing 1/1/09
- FIA belts must have expiration date (no more 5 years, as I read it)
- 2-inch shoulder harnesses for HANS deleted?
- ECUs free as described prior.
- Dodge Shelby Charger to ITB

- (Proposed)VIN rule NLA, effective 1/1/09 (why not 08???)
- (Effective 12/1/07) Triumph TR6 to ITA
- (Rejected) Publish the weight process (Miskoe)
- (Rejected) Allow jacking points (Miskoe)
[/b]



that says to me that if the suit isnt FiA you can simply wear the long underwear.

[JIgou]

get it is writing or get them to send you a patch to put on the suit.
[/b]

Agreed. If the only patch on your suit says "FiA NORME 1986/1986 STANDARD 04.257.CSAI.99" and SCCA wants to see the FIA 8856-2000 patch, you're going to have issues.

I'm in the same boat with my OMP suit, but I'm going to use that as my angle to get away from the sleeping bag version of the suit I've been wearing and get a G-Force 545 suit.

Jarrod

[vr6guy]

Thanks SCCA!!!! enter sarcasm

[gsbaker]

Are there any published TPP ratings for suits? It seems they could be published here (http://www.racingsafetyinstitute.org/Suits.html) and SCCA could use the RSI certification.

[ScotMac]

that says to me that if the suit isnt FiA you can simply wear the long underwear.
[/b]

It says to me that if your suit is SFI 1 or 3, you must wear underwear.

Luckily for me (since i hate wearing underwear), my suite is SFI 5.

[JeffYoung]

On the weight issue, anytime ANYONE has asked, Jake, Andy, Bill, et. al. have explained the subjective factors for a particular car. You just have to ask.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Kirk,

The Borgward 1.8 DOHC is requested for classification in ITB. Target pw/weight is 17. FWD, Struts all around and 118 stock hp. From what you have 'learned' on this site, what would teh weight be for IT?

[Quickshoe]

Yeah SCCA and SFI you dorked up another one! Now a 3 layer "FIA 1986" suit in great condition with carbon-x underwear isn't up to snuff, but the jacka&& in the SFI 3.2a/1 $99 special with some really thin nomex underwear is fine...brilliant.

Glad my suit is a FIA 2000 and even "glader" :P I don't race with SCCA.

[jjjanos]

My suit is fine, but I've got to wonder why they felt a need to "improve" the standard.

What was wrong with the old standard? The existence of a higher rated suits are not neccesary and sufficient conditions to justify it . I really would like to see the cost-benefit analysis on this one and I doubt that this has been done. Given the driver burn rate I've seen over the last ten year - 1 burn/thousands of on track hours - I'm guessing that the cost far exceeds benefits.

[vr6guy]

:happy204:

Yeah SCCA and SFI you dorked up another one! Now a 3 layer "FIA 1986" suit in great condition with carbon-x underwear isn't up to snuff, but the jacka&& in the SFI 3.2a/1 $99 special with some really thin nomex underwear is fine...brilliant.

Glad my suit is a FIA 2000 and even "glader" :P I don't race with SCCA.
[/b]




My suit is fine, but I've got to wonder why they felt a need to "improve" the standard.

What was wrong with the old standard? The existence of a higher rated suits are not neccesary and sufficient conditions to justify it . I really would like to see the cost-benefit analysis on this one and I doubt that this has been done. Given the driver burn rate I've seen over the last ten year - 1 burn/thousands of on track hours - I'm guessing that the cost far exceeds benefits.
[/b]

DING DING DING DING.......how do I appeal this one? My suit was barely used and is in in mint condition, and the FiA rating I have exceeds the necessary SFI rating. SCCA, really knows how to screw things up

[vr6guy]

It says to me that if your suit is SFI 1 or 3, you must wear underwear.

Luckily for me (since i hate wearing underwear), my suite is SFI 5.
[/b]


I never had to wear the long underwear before, so if I wear them then that increases my burn transfer rate. This rule is one of many that is not thought out too well.......

again, where do i appeal this one?

I feel like I just entered a three ring circus

[Marcus Miller]

I feel like I just entered a three ring circus
[/b]


Quote of the decade.


Cue the dancing bear on roller skates.

:birra:

Marcus

[MMiskoe]

Well thanks for the support on the jack points, for those in favor, write the letter, see if it ever gets another day in court. Frustrating that so little response comes from it and that the CRB can define detail down to wrist pin diameter for AS, but can't find a way to word a proposal for jack points that works. Even after I wrote 90% of it for them.

My letter on the process didn't ask for the process to be published, it asked why it wasn't offered up when asked for. So when they say it was previously addressed they either didn't read the question or don't have a real answer.

Andy provided a polite & well written answer a few posts up. Is it too much for the CRB to do the same in the FT? Its OK to respond by saying "its subjective & we don't have time or attention span to deal w/ the resulting questions" but not responding is unprofessional and creates more questions.

I still say that even w/ Andy's response it would not be out of the question to document what cars were reviewed (or which ones not reviewed, which ever is easier) target class pwr/weight ratio, estimated power, list the adders included and indicate how the adders were applied.


Matt

[Knestis]

Hey Kirk,

The Borgward 1.8 DOHC is requested for classification in ITB. Target pw/weight is 17. FWD, Struts all around and 118 stock hp. From what you have 'learned' on this site, what would teh weight be for IT? [/b]

Heck if I know. The process is totally subjective.

;)

Actually, I'm on vacation and just got done eating a heap of Portillo's Italian beef, sausage, and Chicago-style 'dogs, washed down with too much cheap beer. I'm too dazed to do math.

K

[vr6guy]

Well thanks for the support on the jack points, for those in favor, write the letter, see if it ever gets another day in court. Frustrating that so little response comes from it and that the CRB can define detail down to wrist pin diameter for AS, but can't find a way to word a proposal for jack points that works. Even after I wrote 90% of it for them.

My letter on the process didn't ask for the process to be published, it asked why it wasn't offered up when asked for. So when they say it was previously addressed they either didn't read the question or don't have a real answer.

Andy provided a polite & well written answer a few posts up. Is it too much for the CRB to do the same in the FT? Its OK to respond by saying "its subjective & we don't have time or attention span to deal w/ the resulting questions" but not responding is unprofessional and creates more questions.

I still say that even w/ Andy's response it would not be out of the question to document what cars were reviewed (or which ones not reviewed, which ever is easier) target class pwr/weight ratio, estimated power, list the adders included and indicate how the adders were applied.
Matt
[/b]

you must have confused them with your intillect.....

[spdmonkey]

Regarding the FIA 1986 suit standards...It was first published in fastrack maybe July I think. I instantly wrote the CRB and BOD regarding this ridiculous ruling and to date have heard zip. I too have a former high dollar Sparco suit that becomes worthless in SCCA. Frankly it makes no sense but since no-one took the time to acknowledge me from scca and my letter never showed up in Fastrack I consider it a dead issue. I will however write again if we can get a group of people to start a movement. With the FIA suits there is no "patch" to replace as the certification is stitched into the back of the collar. Its a bogus ruling and frankly I don't have the budget to replace my suit with one of equal safety values. I wore the undies too. I had a fire in a Firehawk car many many years ago and you never forget and you never can have enough fire protection. It kills me when I see guys on the grid with t-shirts and single layer suits.

db

[Matt Rowe]

I think the issue with the suits is that suits were being produced that used the specified fabrics but were not being tested. This was extremly limited but it probably highlighted that there was really no control over the suits out there.

[vr6guy]

but my FiA "1986" suit meets or exceeds what the almighty SCCA wants to see. My suit is almost brand new, its not a helmet, its a fire retardent suit. Ive already sent an email to topeka. Lose a racer, and a national chief steward. choice is yours.....

Marc Rider

[Matt Rowe]

I'm not sure you can really say the 1986 automatically meets or exceeds the SFI spec. The SFI test has a higher heatflux, different heat source, and different load applied during the test. So passing the SFI test isn't a given and the FIA no longer allows the 1986 spec. At that point the lawyers probably take over and say we can't allow a FIA spec that the FIA no longer allows.

It sucks but I'm curious how you got an almost new 1986 suit when that spec hasn't been allowed since 2004?

[vr6guy]

So your saying that with my 3 layer suit and the appropriate long underwear is not sufficient?

[Matt Rowe]

Personally, I don't have a feeling one way or the other. I'm just guessing at the logic behind the rule.

[lateapex911]

. Frustrating that so little response comes from it and that the CRB can define detail down to wrist pin diameter for AS, but can't find a way to word a proposal for jack points that works. Even after I wrote 90% of it for them.[/b]

I understand the frustration, but...the AS wrist pin is a rule...it needs detail or it isn't a rule. And while you might have written 90% of the proposal for jack points, it is possible they disagreed with it.



My letter on the process didn't ask for the process to be published, it asked why it wasn't offered up when asked for.[/b]

I'm missing something. How will they "offer it up" without publishing it?


So when they say it was previously addressed they either didn't read the question or don't have a real answer.

Andy provided a polite & well written answer a few posts up. Is it too much for the CRB to do the same in the FT? Its OK to respond by saying "its subjective & we don't have time or attention span to deal w/ the resulting questions" [/b]

Yea, THAT would go over really well!



but not responding is unprofessional and creates more questions.[/b]

No, they did respond, but not in the manner you prefered. And regarding more questions, see below.


I still say that even w/ Andy's response it would not be out of the question to document what cars were reviewed (or which ones not reviewed, which ever is easier) target class pwr/weight ratio, estimated power, list the adders included and indicate how the adders were applied.


Matt
[/b]

And you seriously don't think that wouldn't result in more questions and debate??

Look, I'm not argueing for or against here...but, we've been down this road before. In certain cases I have tried to get the ITACs communications with the membership at large to be more complete. The ECU member request is one. Can you rember a rules change that was so completey laid out? But, the policy on answers to requests has been to keep it short and to the point, for a variety of reasons.

I understand thats not what you want, but, try to look at it from another point of view. Your glass is getting fuller. Communication between the members and the boards that make the rules is trending in a good direction. 4 years ago..heck, even as little as 2 years ago, you wouldn't have guys like me and Andy sticking our collective necks out answering questions on forums like this. And Andy, (and I) try to be accessible and reachable at all times. My emails in my sig, and plenty of members have used it. And they've gotten answers...they might not have liked them, but each seemed gratified with the attempt.

Things are a lot better than they used to be.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Things are a lot better than they used to be.
[/b]

And while Jake is right, don't take that as a sign of complacency. We want to get better. We NEED to get better.

On the jacking point request - the ITAC is divided. Some see value, some see a rule that we have been getting by without for decades with the possibility for parsing and torturing. A split decision on the ITAC means no recommendation goes to the CRB for a change.

The Process issue has been addressed. A 'reason' was given after the first request. There is nothing to hide, but we also don't want to create more confusion. The core process has been spelled out here multiple times. MULTIPLE. Many people know how to use it after some exchange of information.

The reason I challenged Kirk to 'class' that car is that I bet he nails it...because the info is out there, he has asked the questions, I think he understands and he has paid attention.

[seckerich]

Heck if I know. The process is totally subjective.

;)

Actually, I'm on vacation and just got done eating a heap of Portillo's Italian beef, sausage, and Chicago-style 'dogs, washed down with too much cheap beer. I'm too dazed to do math.

K
[/b]
K--you suck. I can not believe you are in Chicago at Portillos and don't bring some Italian sausage back. I am down to my last box of italian roast beef!! Enjoy the good food, my dad just got home from eating there.

[Knestis]

Hee, hee, hee...

And now I'm back from doing the Turkey Trot 5K in Elmhurst (Chicago 'burb) in "30*F, feels like 19*F" with 5000+ other idiots, many of whom were either already drunk, dressed in some goofy costume, or 7 years old with no sense of direction. Neighbors actually had Bloody Mary stations set up in their front yards.

Anyway, on topic - I have notes on my computer at home that remind me of the outline of the process but frankly, I've gotten spoiled. With Jake, Andy, and other ITAC represention on the public boards and more than happy to share the information, I just post my questions and get answers. If you don't recognize the value of that, then frankly you are yet another IT racer who should take IT History 101 and sit through my boring lectures. The REAL test is whether you get the same answer from Andy and Jake (inter-rater reliability) and it's been my experience that they are within just a couple of percentage points, each using the process independently.

Now, I am not necessarily comfortable with some of the assumptions where we have unique make/model cases and "known power gains" get down to a one-car level of granularity - it's just too close to competition adjustments (bleah!) for my tastes, but that's a tiny complaint relative to the goodness that is the current system.

On that topic, it came up in the Mazda/SCCA conflict thread somewhere that the root of some of those problems are just inherent to first assumptions applied in the SS category. I couldn't agree more and it's a shame that the National office can't apply some real strategic thinking, and apply the current IT rules - including the classification/specification process - to new cars. But that's a very different thread...

Happy Turkeyday everyone!

K

[ScotMac]

Hey Kirk,

The Borgward 1.8 DOHC is requested for classification in ITB. Target pw/weight is 17. FWD, Struts all around and 118 stock hp. From what you have 'learned' on this site, what would teh weight be for IT?
[/b]

Since Kirk is on vacation, i'll answer for him.

2507...maybe a bit less for the struts/FWD. Easy to do. You gave us everything, except the multiplier for the stock to IT HP. I used 25%, since it has been stated MANY times.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!! :snow_cool: :114: :snow_cool:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Since Kirk is on vacation, i'll answer for him.

2507...maybe a bit less for the struts/FWD. Easy to do. You gave us everything, except the multiplier for the stock to IT HP. I used 25%, since it has been stated MANY times.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!! :snow_cool: :114: :snow_cool: [/b]

And you would be right on - except that it gets -50 for FWD and + 50 for big brakes (a detail I forgot to add in the original question - so no deduction :) )

And you get a nice rounded down figure of 2500 - guess what car it is?

[Knestis]

I'd have to look back at the original "Miller Ratio" spreadsheet (c2001) but it would be damned close to our archtypical ITB car.

New Mini?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'd have to look back at the original "Miller Ratio" spreadsheet (c2001) but it would be damned close to our archtypical ITB car.

New Mini?

K [/b]

Cha-ching.

[Bill Miller]

Hey Kirk,

The Borgward 1.8 DOHC is requested for classification in ITB. Target pw/weight is 17. FWD, Struts all around and 118 stock hp. From what you have 'learned' on this site, what would teh weight be for IT?
[/b]

Can I play Andy? I didn't read any of the responses past your post, because I didn't want anything to influence my estimate. Based on your scenario, I would say 2500#.

/edit/ Interesting that you used big brakes as the adder to offset the FWD subtracter. I used IRS (I assumed that you got that w/ the struts all around).

Question for you, since you identified it as an actual car that would be up for classification in a couple of years. Wouldn't it actually fit better in ITA at a lighter weight? I figure the ITA weight should be somewhere around 2225-2250.

[ScotMac]

Question for you, since you identified it as an actual car that would be up for classification in a couple of years. Wouldn't it actually fit better in ITA at a lighter weight? I figure the ITA weight should be somewhere around 2225-2250.
[/b]

You didn't know it was a mini. Since i think the mini's curb weight is over 3000lbs, i say it fits better at the ITB 2500lbs. Anyway, ITA is doing much better, so throw us ITB guys a bone.

Edit: Curb weight is 3300lbs!

http://www.caranddriver.com/cars/3965/mini-cooper.html

[RSTPerformance]

Yeah SCCA and SFI you dorked up another one! Now a 3 layer "FIA 1986" suit in great condition with carbon-x underwear isn't up to snuff, but the jacka&& in the SFI 3.2a/1 $99 special with some really thin nomex underwear is fine...brilliant.

Glad my suit is a FIA 2000 and even "glader" :P I don't race with SCCA.
[/b]

Whom do you race with, I would like to get out of SCCA and into an organization that is far more stable and fun. Two things SCCA is seriosly getting away from IMO.




My suit is fine, but I've got to wonder why they felt a need to "improve" the standard.

What was wrong with the old standard? The existence of a higher rated suits are not neccesary and sufficient conditions to justify it . I really would like to see the cost-benefit analysis on this one and I doubt that this has been done. Given the driver burn rate I've seen over the last ten year - 1 burn/thousands of on track hours - I'm guessing that the cost far exceeds benefits.
[/b]

I would also like to see those numbers and the real reason to push more budgeted racers out of racing.



:happy204:
DING DING DING DING.......how do I appeal this one? My suit was barely used and is in in mint condition, and the FiA rating I have exceeds the necessary SFI rating. SCCA, really knows how to screw things up
[/b]

yup, they sure seem to have screwed a lot of things up in the last 12 months.



I never had to wear the long underwear before, so if I wear them then that increases my burn transfer rate. This rule is one of many that is not thought out too well.......

again, where do i appeal this one?

I feel like I just entered a three ring circus
[/b]

the three ring circus is lame compaired to SCCA... I am also interested in how to appeal this one.

Raymond "future purchaser of the cheapest allowed suite and thong fireproof undies" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

You didn't know it was a mini. Since i think the mini's curb weight is over 3000lbs, i say it fits better at the ITB 2500lbs. Anyway, ITA is doing much better, so throw us ITB guys a bone.

Edit: Curb weight is 3300lbs!

http://www.caranddriver.com/cars/3965/mini-cooper.html [/b]


http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/mini/coop...4116/specs.html (http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/mini/cooper/100074116/specs.html)

It's the Mini, and it's in ITB already.

[ddewhurst]

***And now I'm back from doing the Turkey Trot 5K in Elmhurst (Chicago 'burb) in "30*F, feels like 19*F" with 5000+ other idiots, many of whom were either already drunk, dressed in some goofy costume, or 7 years old with no sense of direction. Neighbors actually had Bloody Mary stations set up in their front yards.***

K, if your not busy on New Years day your a welcomed guest at my home so that you might try something for the first time in your life. It's said to be very refreshing. I don't remember the number (it's in the hundreds today where 40 years ago it was 5 to 10) of people who do this. I have over the years gone to the lake Michigan lake front to watch this dressed in my best down hill gear & felt cold. Been there when the water had ice floating, ice on shore, ice farther out, 5* F, you name it :o .

"Milwaukee writer Bob Purvis, right, meets up with Milwaukee Polar Bear Club President Garth Gaskey at Bradford Beach. Gaskey made his 53rd consecutive plunge Jan. 1, 2005."

Have Fun
David

[Bill Miller]

http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/mini/coop...4116/specs.html (http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/mini/cooper/100074116/specs.html)

It's the Mini, and it's in ITB already.
[/b]

Geez, those things have been out for 5 years already?? Where does the time go? BTW, I see why it's in ITB @ 2500 if the curb weight is 3300. And even that's probably a stretch to get to.

/edit/ I thought something didn't make sense w/ that car @ 3300#. That's the GVW, not the curb weight. Curb weight is 2315#.

BTW Andy, those specs say 1.6L and 115hp, not 1.8L and 118hp.

[Andy Bettencourt]

BTW Andy, those specs say 1.6L and 115hp, not 1.8L and 118hp. [/b]

Trying to do it off the top of my head. My bad. You are right on the weights being well under 3000lbs.

[ScotMac]

Geez, those things have been out for 5 years already?? Where does the time go? BTW, I see why it's in ITB @ 2500 if the curb weight is 3300. And even that's probably a stretch to get to.

/edit/ I thought something didn't make sense w/ that car @ 3300#. That's the GVW, not the curb weight. Curb weight is 2315#.

BTW Andy, those specs say 1.6L and 115hp, not 1.8L and 118hp.
[/b]

Sorry, my bad. I was quoting CarAndDriver, which definitely lists the curb weight at 3300lbs:

http://www.caranddriver.com/cars/3965/mini-cooper.html

Looks like the consensus is 1050kg, or 2315lbs:

http://www.internetautoguide.com/car-speci...oper/index.html (http://www.internetautoguide.com/car-specifications/09-int/2002/mini/cooper/index.html) (1050kg)

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com...ni-cooper-4.htm (http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2002-to-2006-mini-cooper-4.htm)

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...articleId=53755 (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=53755)

[Bill Miller]

Lea, read that again:

Other existing sensors, excluding the stock air metering device, may be substituted for equivalent units. - GA
[/b]

'stock air metering device', isn't that the throttle body? I know the way the statement is written, it makes it out as if the stock air metering device were a sensor, but I'm not sure how that works. I know on a CIS VW, the only thing that meters the air going into the motor is the throttle body. But it's certainly not a sensor.

[Eagle7]

'stock air metering device', isn't that the throttle body? I know the way the statement is written, it makes it out as if the stock air metering device were a sensor, but I'm not sure how that works. I know on a CIS VW, the only thing that meters the air going into the motor is the throttle body. But it's certainly not a sensor. [/b]

Bill, many electronic engine control units measure the air volume entering the engine with a dedicated sensor - Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor, Air Flow Meter (AFM), etc. Mine is a spring-loaded flapper door attached to the air filter - two feet from the throttle body. These sensors have a well-defined maximum area that causes restriction in the intake. A common upgrade for the street tuner is to replace the sensor with a physically larger unit to reduce the restriction. The rule says if you've got one, it must not be removed or modified, and all combustion air must flow through it. IMO this is the most important part of the new rule to minimize unintended consequences.

[Greg Amy]

IMO this is the most important part of the new rule to minimize unintended consequences.[/b]
Is "metering" a noun or a transitive verb? Very important distinction...and given I know an English teacher quite well, I'd suggest you'd not like the answer...

IISYCTYBWC!

- GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

The 'air metering device' is the AFM, MAF, etc. If we think it needs clarification, we can do it.

[Greg Amy]

Shall we continue to play this game...?

...the air metering/measuring device (i.e. air flow meter, air mass meter, MAF) must be operational and shall not be modified.

- Define "operational." Does that mean it must also provide electrical signals to be used by the ECU? If not, why not; would that therefore make it "inoperable"? If so, doesn't the ECU rule now over-ride this, given that it can now be electrically "non-operational"?

- Is the slash between "metering" and "measuring" an "and" or an "or" (or both? Hmmm, how can something be both and and or?) Does 'metering' therefore refer to metering as in "measuring" (metering a flow of water - or air) or metering as in "regulating" (metering the allotted gasoline - or air - into the engine, e.g. a throttle body)? Or both (do we have anything that both regulates and measures? Oh, yes: a carburetor!)

- The term "i.e." is abbreviation for the Latin words "id est" or more colloquially "in other words", meaning an alternate definition. This decisively does not mean "e.g.", abbreviation for "exempli gratia" or 'for example'. When one uses "i.e." they are offering an alternate definition or complete set of examples; when one uses "e.g." they mean "for example, but not limited to". Ergo, if your "metering device" does not appear in the list above, is it now free?

Then we get to:

"Air intake hoses, tubes, pipes, resonators, intake mufflers, housings, etc., located ahead of the carburetor/throttle body may be removed or substituted."

So, if the tube ahead of the throttle body may be removed and/or substituted, and the "operational" status of the "the air metering/measuring device" is in question, and I leave it in the car unmodified...well, you can figure out the rest.

I know this is frustrating for you, but welcome to The New SCCA where words mean things...but most of the time not what you think.

As Kirk says: "whee". - GA

[Charlie Broring]

Slowly, but surely, we are turning into Production Car racers.

[CaptainWho]

Slowly, but surely, we are turning into Production Car racers.
[/b]

Only if, personally, winning is more important than racing. For me it's not, for others it is. The point being, I'm not likely to be running at the front, no matter what. I don't get enough seat time. But I can still have a blast dicing with another back marker while watching out for the fast guys in my mirrors. :D

[Bill Miller]

The 'air metering device' is the AFM, MAF, etc. If we think it needs clarification, we can do it.
[/b]


Yes Andy, it does need clarification. Greg's pretty much on it (no surprise there). An AFM or MAF measures the amount of air let into the engine by the air metering device, and generates an electrical signal that's used by the engine mgmt system.

A metering device is for lack of a better term, a valve. An AFM is a meter. It measures air flow, it doesn't control it.

So, what do you consider the 'air metering device' on a CIS car?

[Knestis]

...So, what do you consider the 'air metering device' on a CIS car? [/b]

Isn't there a flapper valve in the airbox on a CIS VW or Audi?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes Andy, it does need clarification. Greg's pretty much on it (no surprise there). An AFM or MAF measures the amount of air let into the engine by the air metering device, and generates an electrical signal that's used by the engine mgmt system.

A metering device is for lack of a better term, a valve. An AFM is a meter. It measures air flow, it doesn't control it.
[/b]

Bill,

Am I reading your post wrong or did you just say an AFM is an air metering device?

Again, the rules do say already: ...the air metering/measuring device (i.e. air flow meter, air mass meter, MAF)

[RSTPerformance]

Isn't there a flapper valve in the airbox on a CIS VW or Audi?

K
[/b]


They used to :unsure:

Anyone know exactly what can be done with a CIS Audi/VW with these new rules??? I know that our computers could not be chiped, but with the new rule can we replace the computers with a known product?

Raymond "I hate the rule, but we can't stop it, now need to get something from it?" Blethen

[Bill Miller]

Isn't there a flapper valve in the airbox on a CIS VW or Audi?

K
[/b]

Yes, there is a flapper valve. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that valve control fuel flow? It moves in response to the air flowing into the engine through the air metering device.


Bill,

Am I reading your post wrong or did you just say an AFM is an air metering device?[/b]

No Andy, I said that an AFM is a meter. That would be a measuring device, not a metering device. The excerpt from FasTrack only mentions [

[Dave Zaslow]

Here are the pertinent mentions of 'air' defined in the GCR technical glossary:

Air Throttle - The valve which allows the driver to modulate the volume of air passing into a fuel injection induction system.

Air Throttle/Throttle Body - The component which allows the driver to regulate the volume of air passing into a fuel injection induction system.

I cannot find any definition of MAF pr MAP pr AFM.

Mr. Amy's post #70 is very well founded. Other than a 'metering rod' there is no definition of metering in the GCR; and that definition lends itself not to a measurement device, but one that regulates an amount.

Get the language to actually mean what you want it to. My VW has a MAF in-line to the Throttle Body. If I put in an alternate ECU hooked to equivalent sensorsand a MAP it is no longer serves any purpose. Regulating the volume of air could be found by many to mean metering. Why not just say that all air entering the engine must pass through the original MAF or other equivalent device?

Pouring oil on the slippery slope....

DZ

[DavidM]

Wheeeeeeeee...... :026: Now where did I put that traction control code....



On the weight issue, anytime ANYONE has asked, Jake, Andy, Bill, et. al. have explained the subjective factors for a particular car. You just have to ask.
[/b]

I believe that has been done at least twice now in writing to the CRB. As best I can tell, the reasoning for not publishing the process for each car is that it can't be explained well enough so as to not generate a bunch of questions due to the subjectivity involved and the ITAC doesn't want to be inundated with lots of questions about specific car weights. I disagreed with this reasoning back when I wrote my letter and, amazingly enough, I still disagree with it. How every car's weight was determined should be public information available to anyone and everyone and should be publicly published. If that generates questions, so be it. People should have the ability to question how their car's (or their competitor's car) weight was determined. The ITAC should have good answers to those questions.

The only reason I even know as much about the "process" as I do is due to this forum. I don't know how I'd feel if I was someone who had no idea what mechanism was used to determine my car's weight. Maybe some people like being ignorant, I don't. I don't think it's too much to ask for this information to be publicly published. Other people think differently.

David

[Andy Bettencourt]

The only reason I even know as much about the "process" as I do is due to this forum. I don't know how I'd feel if I was someone who had no idea what mechanism was used to determine my car's weight. Maybe some people like being ignorant, I don't. I don't think it's too much to ask for this information to be publicly published. Other people think differently.

David [/b]

David,

I understand the frustration but what I don't understand is the lack of desire to accept what we are telling you here. If it were a formula, it would be very easy to publish. It's so not. The framework has been pubished here numerous times - in a place where a dialogue can happen and things can be described and explained. Creating more questions than answers is juts not a smart way to go. ANYONE can ask the history behind the weight of their car and they will get an answer - and probably a whole description of the ins and outs of the process if things don't make sense to the requestor.

I guess I resent the fact that *I* am feeling like you think we are hiding something when we are not.

We all will never agree on everything but the door to the ITAC is always open for questions and answers.

[shwah]

Yes, there is a flapper valve. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that valve control fuel flow? It moves in response to the air flowing into the engine through the air metering device.
No Andy, I said that an AFM is a meter. That would be a measuring device, not a metering device. The excerpt from FasTrack only mentions [
[/b]

It is a mass air flow sensor in every aspect. It uses basic physics to measure the mass flow rate of air into the intake. In the CIS cars the information gathered is mechanically communicated to the fuel metering device, but that does not change what it is.

No way no how that plate can be modified or removed under current, or 2008 IT rules.

Now - you CAN use whatever computer you want to alter the resulting fuel flow from the system. Maybe control the differential pressure regulator of a CIS-E system to get optimum fueling in all conditions. I don't know CIS basic well enough to know if/what you could change controls wise...beyond the adjustable warmup regulator trick.

[Bill Miller]

It is a mass air flow sensor in every aspect. It uses basic physics to measure the mass flow rate of air into the intake. In the CIS cars the information gathered is mechanically communicated to the fuel metering device, but that does not change what it is.

No way no how that plate can be modified or removed under current, or 2008 IT rules.

Now - you CAN use whatever computer you want to alter the resulting fuel flow from the system. Maybe control the differential pressure regulator of a CIS-E system to get optimum fueling in all conditions. I don't know CIS basic well enough to know if/what you could change controls wise...beyond the adjustable warmup regulator trick.
[/b]

Good point Chris, I was caught up in the electronic aspect of it. Nicely done. :023:

[Bob Roth]

1> As I read the fire system rule, I see no change to the exemption of handling of fire systems for IT and showroom that reads below - is it correct that this has not changed

9.3.22. FIRE SYSTEM All cars shall be equipped with an On-Board Fire System except Showroom Stock, Touring, Spec Miata, and Improved Touring.

B. Hand-Held Fire Extinguisher Requirements
The following are acceptable for Showroom Stock, Touring and Improved Touring cars:
1. Halon 1301 or 1211, two (2) pound minimum capacity by weight.
2. Dry chemical, two (2) pound minimum with a positive indicator showing charge. Chemical: 10 BC Underwriters Laboratory rating, potassium bicarbonate (Purple K) recommended, 1A10BC Underwriters Laboratory rating multipurpose, ammonium phosphate and barium sulfate or Monnex.
3. The fire extinguisher shall be securely mounted in the cockpit. All mounting brackets shall be metal and of the quick-release type.

As such, as long as I have a handheld system conforming to 9.3.22.B installed in the car I meet the rules, correct?

Also, if I have a non conforming system, is it correct that I can keep it as long as I nstall a hand held system?

Finally, as a comment to SCCA, when you rewrite rules, it is common for rulesmaking bodies to indicate added text by underlining it. Presently, it seems like you only show the deletions as strikethroughs but not the additions. As I read this section as shown in Fastrac it is not clear if the text shown replaces 9.3.22.A or is simply additive as the published. This is what fastrac says

"Effective 11/1/07: Change section 9.3.22.A as follows:Cars registered after 1/1/09 shall comply with the following on-board fire system requirements:...."`As I am trying to interpret this, what happened to the 2007 GCR section of nozzle and manual or automatic language below?
"A. On-Board Fire System Requirements
1. On-board fire systems shall use Halon 1301 or 1211, with a five (5) pound minimum capacity (by weight). There shall be a minimum of (2) nozzle locations, one in the driver’s compartment and one in either the engine area or the fuel cell area. Manual or Automatic release is allowed."

I suppose it means this replaces the present 9.3.22.A text. A complete listing of the revised section with strikouts and additions underlined would eliminate this confusion. Also, when proposed to the membership, it would help them realize the complete change.

[rabbidmk1]

So would a crank trigger be an equivalent to a distributor/HALL SENSOR?

Does anyone know a good place to buy a nicely priced Sparco suit?



Sounds like NASA might be getting more business!

[DavidM]

David,

I understand the frustration but what I don't understand is the lack of desire to accept what we are telling you here. If it were a formula, it would be very easy to publish. It's so not. The framework has been pubished here numerous times - in a place where a dialogue can happen and things can be described and explained. Creating more questions than answers is juts not a smart way to go. ANYONE can ask the history behind the weight of their car and they will get an answer - and probably a whole description of the ins and outs of the process if things don't make sense to the requestor.

I guess I resent the fact that *I* am feeling like you think we are hiding something when we are not.

We all will never agree on everything but the door to the ITAC is always open for questions and answers.
[/b]
I respect the work the current ITAC has done and think for the most part it has been good so don't take this the wrong way, but....

The "previous" ITAC (I really have no idea where the line was drawn between the "new" ITAC and the "old" ITAC) also had a formula/framework/methodology/whatever you want to call it for determining car weight (and before you say no they didn't, I would bet that they discussed most of the same things you guys discuss when weighting a car). Maybe it was written down somewhere, maybe it wasn't. They said trust us, we know what we're doing. Along comes the "new" ITAC who says the "old" ITAC's method of weighting cars was flawed and they have the new and improved method. A framework is shown (as far as I know, only on this forum) which bases a car's weight on a 25% performance improvement over stock along with adding weight for specific features that are perceived to be performance enhancing. It turns out, however, that this is a really loose framework and there's a whole lot of subjectivity in the process. That 25% number isn't hard and fast and may go up or down and weight may or may not be added for features and could even be subtracted. Some cars even have their weight set below what the process determines due to "outside" considerations. The process for a car is so subjective that it is apparently too difficult to explain it without a long, drawn out discussion. Since it's too difficult to explain we are supposed to just trust that it is correct.

I compare this to when scientists develop a new theory or run experiments. If I'm a scientist and I proclaim that I have this new theory or that I've shown reaction X produces substance y, but I don't tell how I developed the theory or how I ran my experiments then other scientists are going to view my results skeptically. That's why scientist publish theories and experiments in journals so that they can be vetted and reviewed. Sometimes, as with cold fusion, other scientists prove them totally bogus. Most of the time, some holes are poked in the theory or experiment and it gets revised and comes out better for it.

Do I think the ITAC is hiding something? No. Do I think the ITAC is afraid some holes are going to get poked in how cars were weighted? Yes.

I at least hope that the current ITAC has written down somewhere how each car was weighted so that the next generation ITAC can look at that information, even if it doesn't get publicly published. That way, when the current ITAC'ers are long gone, the next gen'ers aren't wondering how the hell the previous ITAC came up with a car's weight.

David

[planet6racing]

David:

You seem like a fairly intelligent guy (seriously, you do!). Based on the dataset that you have (aka the GCR), why don't you work on a formula that produces results close to what is listed in the GCR. Even if you just did one category (say, ITC, since they have like -2 horsepower).

I'm sure everyone (ITAC and all of us) would love to see a formula that takes all the variables into account. Then it could be published and, heck, used by the rest of the classes in the SCCA!! (Just change the original multiplier factor or something)

Just think, your formula could completely reshape the SCCA and make things a little clearer for everyone (though only about 50% of the people will be satisfied with the work...) :D

[Bill Miller]

An interesting point has come out of this discussion. It's been stated (several times) that the 'process' has been discussed several times on this board, so that there's nothing more to be gained by publishing it. What this assumes, is that everyone (in the IT community) reads this forum. I'd buy that, except that it's also been said that this forum is not valid for determining the wishes of the IT community, because not everyone reads it (look at the comments re: jacking point poll). So, this forum is good enough (and far-reaching enough) to disseminate information to the IT community, but not good enough to collect data from it.

/edit/ There was a previous method for spec'ing IT cars, although some will claim that it was never official. I got it from the guy that used to have Jeramy T's job, Sven Pruett. I'll have to dig back, to make sure I remember it correctly, but IIRC, it was 95% of the published curb weight, plus 115# for the cage, minus 115# for the 'stuff' you could legally remove, plus 180# for the driver. That netted out to 95% of curb weight, plus 180#. Didn't take any other factors into consideration. That being said, nobody has ever been able to produce any hard evidence as to how it was applied.

[tom_sprecher]

An interesting point has come out of this discussion. It's been stated (several times) that the 'process' has been discussed several times on this board, so that there's nothing more to be gained by publishing it. What this assumes, is that everyone (in the IT community) reads this forum. I'd buy that, except that it's also been said that this forum is not valid for determining the wishes of the IT community, because not everyone reads it (look at the comments re: jacking point poll). So, this forum is good enough (and far-reaching enough) to disseminate information to the IT community, but not good enough to collect data from it.
[/b]

Yeah! What he said.

BTW: Harumpf

[erlrich]

To Andy, & the other ITAC members,

Given that David is not the first to question it, and I'm sure will not be the last, how difficult would it be to post a short narrative of how "the process" works, to give everyone a little better idea of what factors are considered in setting a car's weight? The write-up would show the constants used (e.g. target wt/hp ratios for each class and the "default" assumed IT power gains for a typical 4 cyl engine), and would then go on to illustrate some of the variables that could be used to determine whether further weight adjustments would be made. It could be something like: Determine the HP gains based on a professional, 100% IT engine build. In cases where there is no reliable documentation for actual gains, an assumed gain of 25% will be used as a basis for determining weight...
Multiply the calculated IT HP by the target WT/HP ratio for the class. The target ratios are: ITC - 19:1, ITB - 17:1, ITA - 15:1...
Determine if there are any inherent strengths or weaknesses in the design & construction of the car. Areas such as suspension type, engine location, brake system design, aerodynamics, weight distribution, etc., etc., etc. will all be taken into consideration, and weight may be adjusted up or down based on these factors...
Etc.
Etc.
This is obviously very simplistic, but I hope you get the idea. We could post the thread as a "stickie" in the rules forum, and then any time someone asked how "the process" works, we could point them to the thread. I know this would take some work on the ITAC's part, but I do think it would go a long way toward answering many of the questions that come up. JMHO.

[Knestis]

...and the point at which the basics of the process get posted, it becomes fodder for picking of nits re: everything from first assumptions to "you need to add 5 pounds to the FWD factor, because it's not close enough!" Bah. Total waste of time.

I'm a formula guy from WAY back but recognize that we have no need for the kind of big-picture validity (generalizability) that scientists strive for with their data collection. What we need - and I think we pretty much have - is internal validity (we are pretty sure that we're measuring what we think we are and that it matters, given the application of the data) and consistency, both in terms of test-retest and inter-rater repeatability.

If five ITAC'ers can independently take the same inputs and arrive within 20# of each other's outcome (weight spec), then that's pretty damned good. If you can ask Andy to spec the same car twice, blindfolded, with a year between attempts, and he gets the same level of consistency, that's pretty damned good.

In terms of the "old ITAC," there really isn't such a thing. The committee as we currently understand it was constituted what, seven years ago...? It's first and most lasting major effort was to develop what has turned into the current process. The second major milestone was the Great Realignment (2 years ago? I'm getting senile), that was the FIRST attempt in the 25 year history of the category to put a majority of the cars on the same laying field. Prior to that, we had the approach that Bill describes but you'll notice that it's JUST about setting the weight. You can't tweak performance by examining only one factor or dimension, so that was simply apples to today's oranges.

Prior to THAT, we had all manner of processes for classifying and spec'ing weights, depending on which individual or group did it. If you don't remember the period when the CoB wouldn't even seriously entertain requests about IT car classification, or would tell you with a straight face that a Neon or Civic Si was an ITS car, then maybe you don't appreciate where we are.

It ain't perfect but it's a HELL of a lot better than it was.

And I don't think that Andy believes that we should count on this forum as an official conduit for information about the category. I know he doesn't, as he's recently said so much. I'm confident that the ITAC would respond informally to ANY inquiry that came to them, as long as it included the necessary data to run the process. The only complaint I might have is that it seems to be impossible to locate contact information for the ad hoc committees on the new SCCA web site, to help allow that to happen.

K

[JoshS]

The only complaint I might have is that it seems to be impossible to locate contact information for the ad hoc committees on the new SCCA web site, to help allow that to happen.
[/b]
Let me help with that.

To find the committee members:

Go to www.scca.com
Click "Log in"
Enter your member number and password
Click "Directory" at the bottom of the left column
Click "Boards and Committees"
Click "IT Committee"

The link is here (http://ams.scca.com/netforum/eweb/dynamicpage.aspx?site=scca&webcode=bc4&committee=ITC), but I suspect it won't work if you're not logged in.

[Knestis]

Oh, log IN you say? :unsure:

Thanks...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

...and the point at which the basics of the process get posted, it becomes fodder for picking of nits re: everything from first assumptions to "you need to add 5 pounds to the FWD factor, because it's not close enough!" Bah. Total waste of time.

I'm a formula guy from WAY back but recognize that we have no need for the kind of big-picture validity (generalizability) that scientists strive for with their data collection. What we need - and I think we pretty much have - is internal validity (we are pretty sure that we're measuring what we think we are and that it matters, given the application of the data) and consistency, both in terms of test-retest and inter-rater repeatability.

If five ITAC'ers can independently take the same inputs and arrive within 20# of each other's outcome (weight spec), then that's pretty damned good. If you can ask Andy to spec the same car twice, blindfolded, with a year between attempts, and he gets the same level of consistency, that's pretty damned good.

In terms of the "old ITAC," there really isn't such a thing. The committee as we currently understand it was constituted what, seven years ago...? It's first and most lasting major effort was to develop what has turned into the current process. The second major milestone was the Great Realignment (2 years ago? I'm getting senile), that was the FIRST attempt in the 25 year history of the category to put a majority of the cars on the same laying field. Prior to that, we had the approach that Bill describes but you'll notice that it's JUST about setting the weight. You can't tweak performance by examining only one factor or dimension, so that was simply apples to today's oranges.

Prior to THAT, we had all manner of processes for classifying and spec'ing weights, depending on which individual or group did it. If you don't remember the period when the CoB wouldn't even seriously entertain requests about IT car classification, or would tell you with a straight face that a Neon or Civic Si was an ITS car, then maybe you don't appreciate where we are.

It ain't perfect but it's a HELL of a lot better than it was.

And I don't think that Andy believes that we should count on this forum as an official conduit for information about the category. I know he doesn't, as he's recently said so much. I'm confident that the ITAC would respond informally to ANY inquiry that came to them, as long as it included the necessary data to run the process. The only complaint I might have is that it seems to be impossible to locate contact information for the ad hoc committees on the new SCCA web site, to help allow that to happen.

K [/b]



Thanks for the support and history lesson.

[Knestis]

I should add that we need to spill some beer on the ground for Darin Jordan every time we have one of these conversations. He's not actually GONE, he just has more sense than to hang out here all the time, but he was really instrumental in getting us headed down this path.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I should add that we need to spill some beer on the ground for Darin Jordan every time we have one of these conversations. He's not actually GONE, he just has more sense than to hang out here all the time, but he was really instrumental in getting us headed down this path.

K [/b]

+1

[erlrich]

...and the point at which the basics of the process get posted, it becomes fodder for picking of nits re: everything from first assumptions to "you need to add 5 pounds to the FWD factor, because it's not close enough!" Bah. Total waste of time. [/b] All I was suggesting was that someone take the time to put into one clear, concise post that which has already been explained several times, so that we have a point of reference for those who maybe haven't read every word of every thread.

[JeffYoung]

Earl, Andy's posted the formula previously, on several occasions. I am sure he will do so again if asked.

I understand this seems like a game of hide the ball to some, but it really is not. If you want to know why your car is at the weight it is at, ask, and you'll be told. You'll be told the expected IT prep gain percentage, the subjective adders/subtractions, and the process weight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I will try and put something together.

[jjjanos]

As such, as long as I have a handheld system conforming to 9.3.22.B installed in the car I meet the rules, correct? [/b]


What section of the GCR defines the minimum fire system/bottle for a Showroom Stock Car?
What section of the GCR requires a system or bottle for a SS Car?

What section of the GCR defines a suitable system/bottle for an IT car?
What section of the GCR requires or says you must or may install either in an IT car?
What section of the GCR says that if the IT rules do not specifically allow it, it can not be done to an IT car?

[planet6racing]

Completely off topic, but...

Can we start a pool on how long it takes a thread in Rules&Regs to become one about the IT weight "Formula?" We could make it a special prize at the ARRC and whomever was closest, without going over, to the actual number of posts in a thread would win. Of course, we'd have to setup rules about people intentionally steering the conversation (maybe create some sort of formul... Oh crap, there I go!)... :D :D :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

Completely off topic, but...

Can we start a pool on how long it takes a thread in Rules&Regs to become one about the IT weight "Formula?" We could make it a special prize at the ARRC and whomever was closest, without going over, to the actual number of posts in a thread would win. Of course, we'd have to setup rules about people intentionally steering the conversation (maybe create some sort of formul... Oh crap, there I go!)... :D :D :D [/b]

It's exactly why its a bad idea. Had a great conversation with a racer last night about his car and teh process. I think he left understanding how it worked AND happy. Imagine that.

[rcc85]

If you want to know why your car is at the weight it is at, ask, and you'll be told. You'll be told the expected IT prep gain percentage, the subjective adders/subtractions, and the process weight.
[/b]

Okay, I'll bite. :D

Why is my car at the weight it is at?

1985 Dodge Daytona, struts in front, 2.2L with throttle body injection, front wheel drive

It's at 2630 lbs in ITB


Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[BlueStreak]

I have no clue how the process works, but I'd say thats 50-100lbs heavy to be competitive in ITB.

[Knestis]

You might be asking the wrong question there, Bob. The answer to "why" is probably that it got spec'd in about 1990 based on the curb weight plus-and-minus kind of formula that Bill described.

What you REALLY want to know is "What is the process weight for this car?" In addition to what you've provided, you'll need to provide the SAE stated HP and torque and the stock weight. The latter probably won't make any difference in your case, since it's really only to see if there's going to be a problem getting it to the resulting minimum weight.

K