March FasTrack is up [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

MMiskoe

02-20-2008, 09:50 PM

Fuel testing got some attention. Does anyone know if these new standards are any better at allowing plain old pump gas pass? A couple of years ago I had gas from a couple of different local stations and some Powermist race fuel all tested. All failed. So I'm curious if these revised standards will allow any more lattitude.

Also, can anyone give insight as to why a sample can't be drawn directly out of the cell/tank? Or why the sample port has to be on the supply side of the fuel system? When the sample port requirement first came out, I asked Topeka why you couldn't use a bulb baster (sp?) from the cell. I was told it was too dangerous. Its pretty obvious that they are concerned w/ fuel spillage in a hot engine bay, but they don't seem to be offering up as many options as they could.

Matt

Bill Miller

02-20-2008, 10:29 PM

Why Bill, you think it's a B car?

Andy,

I'd like to know how it landed in ITC. I don't necessarily think it's an ITB car, but there are certainly a few ITB cars that have similar specs. What's the process weight for the car in ITB? If I had to guess, I'd say somewhere around 2175#.

Bill Miller

02-20-2008, 10:30 PM

As far as the fuel testing thing goes, I'd say it's a safe bet that they've made what were otherwise perfectly acceptable fuel test ports, illegal.

mbuskuhl

02-20-2008, 10:44 PM

Or why the sample port has to be on the supply side of the fuel system?

Unless I misunderstood the rule, it does not have to be on the supply side line. You can have it on the return line as well, which is where mine is.

Does this new rule kill the easy "T" in a line with a small hose and cap on the end?

"All cars shall be equipped with an accessible sampling port/valve/device located in a fuel line between the fuel tank or fuel cell and the carburetors or fuel injection system to allow safe acquisition of a fuel sample. If possible, the port/valve/device should be located outside the engine compartment. The sampling port/valve/device will be installed and used by the competitor to obtain the sample without fuel leaking, spraying or squirting. Siphoning of fuel directly from the fuel tank or fuel cell or removing a hose or line is not allowed."

Removal of sound deadening material is specifically approved, take the stuff out. Should clear up the discussion on here a few months back.

Andy Bettencourt

02-20-2008, 11:22 PM

Andy,

I'd like to know how it landed in ITC. I don't necessarily think it's an ITB car, but there are certainly a few ITB cars that have similar specs. What's the process weight for the car in ITB? If I had to guess, I'd say somewhere around 2175#.
It landed in ITC because that is where we think it fits best based on achievable weight. 103hp SOHC, FWDer with struts.

2375 in ITC (2195 without driver) or 2140 in ITB (1960 without driver)

Curb weight of ~2400lbs.

jhooten

02-20-2008, 11:34 PM

The Sunoco 104 UL track gas failed at the last race. DC was 15.6.

Bill Miller

02-21-2008, 02:25 AM

It landed in ITC because that is where we think it fits best based on achievable weight. 103hp SOHC, FWDer with struts.

2375 in ITC (2195 without driver) or 2140 in ITB (1960 without driver)

Curb weight of ~2400lbs.

So why didn't you just come out and say that Andy? But, since you threw out the numbers,

1991 VW Jetta, 105hp, 110 lb-ft SOHC, FWDer w/ struts, curb weight of 2600+# ITB spec wt of 2280# (2100# w/o driver).

One car car drop 500+# yet another can't drop ~400#? And where's the 140# weight difference come from, given that they're both similar power output and drivetrain / suspension configurations?

Like I said Andy, I'm all for more cars in ITC, but please be consistent w/ how the cars are classed.

Oh, and the same year GTI that's listed in ITB has almost the same curb weight as the Protege, but it also weighs in @ 2280# in ITB.

MMiskoe

02-21-2008, 06:45 AM

Unless I misunderstood the rule, it does not have to be on the supply side line. You can have it on the return line as well, which is where mine is.

The way I read it, it has to be on the supply side because they say "between the tank/cell and the rail/carb". On the return side it would be after the rail/carb, therefore not between it & the tank. I'd be curious for opinions here.

As far as the fuel testing thing goes, I'd say it's a safe bet that they've made what were otherwise perfectly acceptable fuel test ports, illegal.

That's kind of what I was thinking. So much for a threaded connection, now you have to have some sort of a dry break valve which adds places for it to leak.

All this for a test that unless I'm confused, will most likely fail, therefore tech will never test it.

Bill Miller

02-21-2008, 07:32 AM

The way I read it, it has to be on the supply side because they say "between the tank/cell and the rail/carb". On the return side it would be after the rail/carb, therefore not between it & the tank. I'd be curious for opinions here.

That's kind of what I was thinking. So much for a threaded connection, now you have to have some sort of a dry break valve which adds places for it to leak.

All this for a test that unless I'm confused, will most likely fail, therefore tech will never test it.

I don't think there's any 'direction' indicated in what they wrote. It can be on either 'side' of the circuit.

dickita15

02-21-2008, 08:07 AM

Dave Gomberg

02-21-2008, 09:00 AM

With regard to the fuel test changes: these are proposed changes, effective 11/01/08. If you have questions/issues with the proposal, write to the CRB and make them known.

Dave

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2008, 09:22 AM

So why didn't you just come out and say that Andy? But, since you threw out the numbers,

1991 VW Jetta, 105hp, 110 lb-ft SOHC, FWDer w/ struts, curb weight of 2600+# ITB spec wt of 2280# (2100# w/o driver).

One car car drop 500+# yet another can't drop ~400#? And where's the 140# weight difference come from, given that they're both similar power output and drivetrain / suspension configurations?

Like I said Andy, I'm all for more cars in ITC, but please be consistent w/ how the cars are classed.

Oh, and the same year GTI that's listed in ITB has almost the same curb weight as the Protege, but it also weighs in @ 2280# in ITB.

Because of the way you phrased your initial question Bill. Read it ot loud to yourself. Typicall Miller-stuff, really.

All we are going to do is class the new stuff (requests) whatever legacy stuff remains are adressed by member request. If this car was classed by the current ITAC, it was obviously felt it could make weight. Just because two car look alike on paper doesn't mean they are.

Knestis

02-21-2008, 09:33 AM

March Fastrack

Section 9.1.3.D.5.c.1, clarify the section by changing the first sentence to read as follows: Any anti-roll bar(s), traction bar(s), panhard rod or watts linkage may be added, removed or substituted, provided its/their installation serves no other purpose.

I have added a traction bar (tri-link) so does this change, adding the word removed, allow me to take out the currently non functional upper links.

All of the conversations have focused on sway bars but yes, that is the case. Of course, this presumes that any part in question fits the glossary definitions of "traction bar," etc.

K

Racerlinn

02-21-2008, 10:33 AM

raffaelli

02-21-2008, 10:50 AM

Unless I misunderstood the rule, it does not have to be on the supply side line. You can have it on the return line as well, which is where mine is.

Does this new rule kill the easy "T" in a line with a small hose and cap on the end?

"All cars shall be equipped with an accessible sampling port/valve/device located in a fuel line between the fuel tank or fuel cell and the carburetors or fuel injection system to allow safe acquisition of a fuel sample. If possible, the port/valve/device should be located outside the engine compartment. The sampling port/valve/device will be installed and used by the competitor to obtain the sample without fuel leaking, spraying or squirting. Siphoning of fuel directly from the fuel tank or fuel cell or removing a hose or line is not allowed."

Removal of sound deadening material is specifically approved, take the stuff out. Should clear up the discussion on here a few months back.

I just installed, last week, the Pegasus port in the return line. Hope it can stay there! The thread sealant is still wet!:o

shwah

02-21-2008, 10:50 AM

jjjanos

02-21-2008, 11:03 AM

Any comment on this:

GCR
Item 1. Effective 1/1/08: Correct the first Note of section 9.1.12 to read as follows:
Note 1: For the purposes of this section, “entrants” shall be defined as drivers classified in the final official race results of National races as finishers, did-not-finish (DNF), did-not-start (DNS), or disqualified (DQ).

Does this mean a class can have a bunch of DNS entries to make numbers for the RubOffs? Essentially allowing a class to buy their way in?

I believe, in the past, the only thing that counted was the number of cars to take the race green flag. Cars that qualified and could not make the race grid were not included in the participation numbers. All this does is give a class credit for these entrants.

To "buy" your way into the Runoffs, the driver/car still must enter and run at least one session. This is little different from the previous rule where to "buy" your way into the Runoffs, the driver/car had to run at least one session where the race must be included in the sessions run.

jhooten

02-21-2008, 01:29 PM

924Guy

02-21-2008, 02:15 PM

I believe, in the past, the only thing that counted was the number of cars to take the race green flag. Cars that qualified and could not make the race grid were not included in the participation numbers. All this does is give a class credit for these entrants.

To "buy" your way into the Runoffs, the driver/car still must enter and run at least one session. This is little different from the previous rule where to "buy" your way into the Runoffs, the driver/car had to run at least one session where the race must be included in the sessions run.

OK, I understand what you're saying... But I have to admit, I have a bit of a philosophical issue with counting DNS's toward Runoffs numbers. Simply put, if they can't even get their car running long enough to take the green - is it appropriate to count such clunkers towards eligibility to The National Race To End All Races??? And I don't accept whining along the line of having one crappy weekend all year... if it's the only weekend you run all season, you can hardly be considered to have much of a serious, National-level effort, can you? If it isn't the only weekend, well then, what do you have to worry about? :blink:

But, then, I suppose such thoughts should best be addressed to the CRB, not our little forum here... I guess I'm just not a fan of 1-race motors. If I were, I would probably care more about drag racing...

seckerich

02-21-2008, 03:04 PM

I always wonder why Andy even bothers to post here since some of you blast him personally for every move the ITAC as a whole makes. A few of you need to grow up and act like somebody.:023:

seckerich

02-21-2008, 03:07 PM

seckerich

02-21-2008, 03:12 PM

OK, I understand what you're saying... But I have to admit, I have a bit of a philosophical issue with counting DNS's toward Runoffs numbers. Simply put, if they can't even get their car running long enough to take the green - is it appropriate to count such clunkers towards eligibility to The National Race To End All Races??? And I don't accept whining along the line of having one crappy weekend all year... if it's the only weekend you run all season, you can hardly be considered to have much of a serious, National-level effort, can you? If it isn't the only weekend, well then, what do you have to worry about? :blink:

But, then, I suppose such thoughts should best be addressed to the CRB, not our little forum here... I guess I'm just not a fan of 1-race motors. If I were, I would probably care more about drag racing...

It will not give points to the driver that did not make the race so you are not helping "clunkers" go to the runoffs. It is only counted towards the National participation numbers to justify dropping classes. It counts people that actually spent the money to go to, and enter the race that have trouble. No free lunch.

gran racing

02-21-2008, 03:37 PM

Cash the check--count the entrant.

What happens when a person enters a race, the region cashes the check, the entrant doesn't put wheels on the track and then requests a refund a little while later. That individual and class receives a DNS. In this scenario, can someone absolutely confirm that the class is not receiving credit for that vehicles participation?

Butch Kummer

02-21-2008, 03:42 PM

At Atlanta Region events we pull no-shows from the results before the weekend is over - if a car never turned a wheel then it doesn't show up in the official results. But then we automatically issue refunds for the no-shows, so other regions may do this differently if they require a person to actually request the refund.

lateapex911

02-21-2008, 03:54 PM

I have a letter in on this for clarification.
IF you can buy an entry, and never actually put a car on the track, yet have it count to the car counts for the Runoffs, we have a big problem Houston.

gran racing

02-21-2008, 04:19 PM

That's what I was wondering. I've submitted an entry fee in the past, saw my name in the final official results sheet, a week or two after sent in for my refund, got that a little while later. I would imagine that regions would have turned in their event records before the information was sent to national, but really don't know.

Funny how I want to make the runoffs, sent entry fees to numerous races even on the same weekend, and my class now has the participation numbers to qualify for the Runoffs. :cool: It probably doesn't work like this, but it has me thinking...

jay05

02-21-2008, 04:26 PM

Yes tech did test fuel, paperwork was done and sent to the chief steward, there our responsibility ended.

The problem with the test port being in the return line is that there is not enough flow with the fuel pump on/engine not running to get a sample. All of the guys with the sample ports in the return line had to start the engine to get a sample. We do not like running engines in/around the tech shed with fuel all over the place. It was suggested the sample ports be relocated to the supply line.

This was at the Febuary race before this fastrack came out.

Understandable. One of the reasons I put it on the return side is that the pressure would be bled off when removing the cap and installing the valve and hose.

seckerich

02-21-2008, 04:41 PM

When we do the audit for a race we remove the no shows from the results. You may see something on my laps but it will not be on the report sent to National office. We have to pay fees and insurance on a per car basis so you can bet we remove them. Only cars that actually take the track for a session are counted and pay. If no wheel is turned they get a refund. I can see that people could pay an entry and run one practice session to boost car counts. Wish I had about 20 of those a race, it would sure help the bottom line.

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2008, 04:48 PM

My understanding in talking with CRB members is to give credit for those who have turned a wheel (and lost ther entry fees). Nothing more, nothing less.

mbuskuhl

02-21-2008, 04:55 PM

Yes tech did test fuel, paperwork was done and sent to the chief steward, there our responsibility ended.

The problem with the test port being in the return line is that there is not enough flow with the fuel pump on/engine not running to get a sample. All of the guys with the sample ports in the return line had to start the engine to get a sample. We do not like running engines in/around the tech shed with fuel all over the place. It was suggested the sample ports be relocated to the supply line.

This was at the Febuary race before this fastrack came out.

This all depends on where your pump is and whether it is switched seperately. If you can turn on your pump without starting the motor it shouldn't be an issue, right? On mine for example, since I run an external pump mounted below the cell, if there was to be a test port in the supply line, it would have to be after the pump... which would require the test port to be in the engine compartment.

jjjanos

02-21-2008, 06:04 PM

What happens when a person enters a race, the region cashes the check, the entrant doesn't put wheels on the track and then requests a refund a little while later. That individual and class receives a DNS. In this scenario, can someone absolutely confirm that the class is not receiving credit for that vehicles participation?

The National T&S Adminstrator sent out a notice to license holders regarding this. I believe cars listed as DNS in the final results will be those cars only that did turn a wheel but who did not start the race.

So, no I cannot absolutely confirm it. I can say with a 95% confidence interval that, if regions do their result sheets in accordance with the new TPS directive, that we can reject the null hypothesis that cars never turning a wheel will be counted as DNS.

:)

ddewhurst

02-21-2008, 06:28 PM

***I have added a traction bar (tri-link) so does this change, adding the word removed, allow me to take out the currently non functional upper links.***

Dick, the answer is yes. But if your third link breaks do you really want to see the results without at least one upper OEM link in place. I can only imagine the damage which WILL occure when you have only two lower links.

This DNS, DNF, DIDN'T TURN A WHEEL is a great example of why ALL requests accecpted or denied should have the requestors name.

With the fule sample port I would guess that the rule writters logic was/is that the rule writters said the sample shall be taken between the OEM fuel tank/the fuel cell & the carb/injector which their logics see as on the path FROM the tank/cell to the carb/injection & not the inverse path.

raffaelli

02-21-2008, 07:26 PM

guess that the rule writters logic was/is that the rule writters said the sample shall be taken between the OEM fuel tank/the fuel cell & the carb/injector which their logics see as on the path FROM the tank/cell to the carb/injection & not the inverse path.

I'll agree with that but...that is not what it says.

Bill Miller

02-21-2008, 08:56 PM

I am pretty sure there are a lot of A2 Jettas that weigh less than 2600. Maybe the last of the breed when equiped with AC, sunroof, power windows and that big ole knee bar get into 2500 territory.

According to Consumer Automotive Guide the 2door 90-92 version has a curb weight of 2275, 4door 90-92 version 2330.

Chris,

I took the data from Edmunds, which is also where I took the data for the Mazda. For the Jetta, it was the GL model.

Andy,

Because of the way you phrased your initial question Bill. Read it ot loud to yourself. Typicall Miller-stuff, really.

You're the one that's putting inflection on it, it was a simple, straight-forward question. Your initial response was the one that was looking for a fight.

[/quote]
All we are going to do is class the new stuff (requests) whatever legacy stuff remains are adressed by member request. If this car was classed by the current ITAC, it was obviously felt it could make weight. Just because two car look alike on paper doesn't mean they are.[/quote]

So much for an objective process. And whatever happened to just doing what was right? And since Kirk brought it up, where did the requestor ask for the car to be classed?

jhooten

02-21-2008, 09:35 PM

This all depends on where your pump is and whether it is switched seperately. If you can turn on your pump without starting the motor it shouldn't be an issue, right? On mine for example, since I run an external pump mounted below the cell, if there was to be a test port in the supply line, it would have to be after the pump... which would require the test port to be in the engine compartment.

You can have it other than in the engine compartment. Mine has a T just after the pump with a hose running to the left rear of the frame where a valve is mounted and a hose is tied to the frame. The exhaust exits in front of the right rear wheel so I am as far away from anything hot as I can be when giving a sample.

And yes if you put the test port between the tank and the pump all you would do is suck air into the line as soon as you turn on the pump.

In my limited experience in the tech shed, with most fuel injected cars there is not much pressure or flow in the return line with the car running at idle and almost none with the pump on and the engine not running. As an example it took nearly ten minutes to get a six ounce sample from an SP MKIV Supra.

Do you really want to be the one that causes every one to stack up in tech waiting for a sample to be collected from your car? I suggest that you test your sample port to see if it works and if you can get a sample without spillage.

mbuskuhl

02-21-2008, 09:54 PM

I suggest that you test your sample port to see if it works and if you can get a sample without spillage.

I actually use my test port to drain the cell, so it flows rather efficiently. There is a T on the return line with a hose and cap right before it dumps back into the cell. Unscrew the cap and flip the fuel pump switch, doesn't take long to fill jugs. The reason for not mounting it after the pump and before the engine compartment would put it under the car or in the wheel well area, neither of which place I want to go. I guess it all depends on each fuel injection system and what kind of flow you get on the return. Mine works and as far as I can tell, meets the rule as written.

shwah

02-21-2008, 09:59 PM

OK now I am going to have to go and weigh an 8V Jetta or two this year. I have a few friends with 2d and 4d street cars. I will report back when I get a chance to scale them.

RE the fuel port. The way I read this, I just need to be sure I don't spill any fuel when I use my current underhood port. I may add a valve to the banjo fitting I use now, but I am not moving it, or splicing it in somewhere under the car.

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2008, 10:00 PM

Andy,

You're the one that's putting inflection on it, it was a simple, straight-forward question. Your initial response was the one that was looking for a fight.

Bill, Read post #23. Enough said.

So much for an objective process. And whatever happened to just doing what was right? And since Kirk brought it up, where did the requestor ask for the car to be classed?

You are the one looking for the fight Bill. This IS what we think is right. When I say that just because they LOOK alike on paper - and that they may not be - tells you that we look at more than just the numbers. In this case, the numbers showed either a really light ITB car or a solid ITC choice. Upon tight examination, it was determined that the ITB weight was not reasonable and it was an ITC car. Not really sure why you would have a problem with that logic.

The requestor asked for it to be classed in ITB. What if the orginal requestor of the Golf III to be classed in ITC? Makes no matter to the ITAC really, its a request for a car to be classed. The car goes through the process and lands where it makes the most sense - hopefully smack in the wheelhouse of the class structure we have defined for us. Just because a specific class is asked for - really means little. Would you rather we declined the classification in whole because they 'predicted' the wrong class? I really have no idea what your beef is.

Tell us all this Bill - what isn't "right" about this classification - or are you using it to complain about some VW classification?

Bill Miller

02-21-2008, 10:30 PM

OK now I am going to have to go and weigh an 8V Jetta or two this year. I have a few friends with 2d and 4d street cars. I will report back when I get a chance to scale them.

Chris,

I don't think it really matters what the cars actually weigh. It's my understanding that the process is based on published numbers. And the curb weight is not really the point here. What's the point is, is how do you end up w/ two cars that are essentially equals on paper end up 140# apart, were they to be in the same class? But the even bigger question is, why aren't two cars that have such similar physical attributes in the same class?

Bill Miller

02-21-2008, 10:43 PM

Bill, Read post #23. Enough said.

You are the one looking for the fight Bill. This IS what we think is right. When I say that just because they LOOK alike on paper - and that they may not be - tells you that we look at more than just the numbers. In this case, the numbers showed either a really light ITB car or a solid ITC choice. Upon tight examination, it was determined that the ITB weight was not reasonable and it was an ITC car. Not really sure why you would have a problem with that logic.

The requestor asked for it to be classed in ITB. What if the orginal requestor of the Golf III to be classed in ITC? Makes no matter to the ITAC really, its a request for a car to be classed. The car goes through the process and lands where it makes the most sense - hopefully smack in the wheelhouse of the class structure we have defined for us. Just because a specific class is asked for - really means little. Would you rather we declined the classification in whole because they 'predicted' the wrong class? I really have no idea what your beef is.

Tell us all this Bill - what isn't "right" about this classification - or are you using it to complain about some VW classification?

You know what Andy, your comments aren't worth a response. But you are sticking w/ your MO of shouting people down that don't drink your kool-aid.

Knestis

02-21-2008, 11:08 PM

I might be suffering from the Kool-aid but the piece of the puzzle that seems to be the hardest - in my LIMITED experience - is the "what can/should/will the car weigh in race trim?" question.

And even with FIVE buckets to put them in now, it sure seems that a lot find themselves in never-never land between two classes. We do the math and lo and behold! It's an ITB- car! (You had an ITC+ when I added up the scores, but you cleaned the white board for extra credit points.)

The question of "Fat in [lower class] or way light in [higher class]?" becomes one that has to get dealt with in qualitative terms, often with big doses of philosophy heaped on top.

It's easy cheezy up to THAT point but I hadn't anticipated that it gets a lot more challenging pretty quick thereafter. Cars of different eras lose different amounts of weight with IT prep, some are inherently heavy, published curb weights are of limited value in the real world, we don't collectively have much experience (or ANY) with some cars, we have differing opinions about how hard owners should have to squeeze to make weight, drivers are bigger than the mythical 180# that's dominated that part of the math for a long time, and - to complicate our lives even more - we really want to make the decision that is most likely to lead to healthy grids and good racing.

Which would attract more entries? A good ITC Protege at a readily achievable weight, or a challenging ITB Protege that could only make weight with a jockey driving and every bit lightened to the Nth degree? Ask two people and you get two answers.

Someone needs to request some classifications that end up under the fat part of the curve, in any class please. :)

K

Catch22

02-21-2008, 11:28 PM

So why didn't you just come out and say that Andy? But, since you threw out the numbers,

1991 VW Jetta, 105hp, 110 lb-ft SOHC, FWDer w/ struts, curb weight of 2600+# ITB spec wt of 2280# (2100# w/o driver).

One car car drop 500+# yet another can't drop ~400#? And where's the 140# weight difference come from, given that they're both similar power output and drivetrain / suspension configurations?

Like I said Andy, I'm all for more cars in ITC, but please be consistent w/ how the cars are classed.

Oh, and the same year GTI that's listed in ITB has almost the same curb weight as the Protege, but it also weighs in @ 2280# in ITB.

And it took wailing and gnashing of teeth to get the 92hp Civic DX moved from ITA to ITB.
And it has to weigh 2240lbs in ITB?

Geez guys. A double wishbone suspension isn't THAT good. Seriously.\

Don't get me wrong. I'm not intending to point and pick and make people feel bad. But stuff like this makes me feel that for as far as we've come in IT rulesmaking, we still have a long way to go.

BTW - As a former ITC driver I don't like that Protege there. I know what my former top car did on the dyno, and I'm guessing a fully built Protege will cover that by about 20 horses. And thats a conservative guestimate.
Just sayin.

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2008, 11:30 PM

You know what Andy, your comments aren't worth a response. But you are sticking w/ your MO of shouting people down that don't drink your kool-aid.

New Years resolution: start sending you copies of the PM's I get when I respond to you.

Bill Miller

02-21-2008, 11:40 PM

New Years resolution: start sending you copies of the PM's I get when I respond to you.

So why didn't you just let one of the other ITAC members field the question?

The question of "Fat in [lower class] or way light in [higher class]?" becomes one that has to get dealt with in qualitative terms, often with big doses of philosophy heaped on top.Kirk,

It would seem that the New Beetle would have lent some decent insight into that one. Tack on some of that weight difference between the ITB process weight of the Protege and the ITB race weights of similar cars, and all of a sudden it's not such a 'way light' ITB car.

Maybe Chris' question about ITB process weights for the Mk II and Mk III Golf/Jetta is relevant. Where's the 140# difference between the Protege and the Mk II Golf/Jetta come from? Can't all be for a close-ratio box.

Catch22

02-21-2008, 11:45 PM

2375 in ITC (2195 without driver) or 2140 in ITB (1960 without driver)

So a 5 speed 103hp Protege goes to ITB at 2140.
And a 5 speed 92hp Civic goes to ITB at 2240.

So... The car with 11 LESS horsepower has to weigh 100lbs more?
Really?

OK. You're right. I have a dog in this fight because there is a Civic under construction in my garage. But I have to admit that this pisses me off.
You don't have to be a genius to see that either the "process" wasn't equally applied to the Civic or there is WAY too much penalty given for a double wishbone suspension.

Seriously guys. That is pretty wrong right there.
I'd love to see the actual calculations that got us to that result.

BTW - In the interest of full disclosure, I requested the Protege classification. Looked like a good ITB car to me, so obviously the "process" I thought I grapsed isn't so much in my grip.

Andy Bettencourt

02-22-2008, 12:05 AM

Scott, let me ask you this question before I give you an answer. You MUST answer honestly...:D

What are your WHP targets for your project?

Remember, there is a TON of Honda knowledge (not me) on the ITAC. You answer low, and I get to call BS.

Catch22

02-22-2008, 12:13 AM

I'll bet that ton of knowledge isn't as much knowledge as Blake and I have with a DUAL POINT Honda motor.

The answer is "I'll be thrilled with 105 dynojet whp." Anything more than that will be very unexpected gravy.

If anyone thinks it can make more, I'd love for them to build me a LEGAL motor.
If the folks on the ITAC didn't take the dual point injection into account when doing the classification... Shame on them. I made the info available.

Andy Bettencourt

02-22-2008, 12:19 AM

Catch22

02-22-2008, 12:22 AM

BTW Andy, because I like you and don't want to ambush you, I'll tell you something before you call "BS" on my numbers...

A few years back when I first started requesting the DX go to ITB, we did a little experiment with my ITC car and its fully built Sunbelt motor.
The only difference between the motor in the ITC Civic Standard and the ITB Civic DX is the cam and the ECU. Otherwise they are identical. So we put a DX cam and stock ECU in my motor and dyno'd it.
The untuned (other than timing) result was 99whp.
In fully tuned ITC trim it did 89whp.

So I've already done this once, and got 99whp. The only legal things left to do with that 99whp is optimizing cam timing (retarded by head decking) and some potential ECU work.
But since nobody does ECU work for the dual point, thats a DIY megasquirt sort of X factor.

So knowing what we know, we think 105 is going to be about right give or take a pony or two.
Got anybody on the ITAC with more knowledge than that? :)

Catch22

02-22-2008, 12:27 AM

The point is that the 92hp motor you have there has the legal capacity to run WELL outside the standard 25% increases...and the ITAC knows it. It was classed accordingly.

Just another example of why this ain't a formula. The ITAC uses what it knows, when it knows it.

No.
It doesn't.

You guys got it wrong.
Sorry. You did.
It should weigh no more than 2175, which is what I suggested last year.

I couldn't get over 25% out of this motor if I cheated.

But... Whatever.
It'll still be a good car. Just not anywhere with long straights.

Scott, who thinks maybe the ITAC doesn't have the Honda knowledge it thinks it has, which is unfortunate.

edit: PS - Before you go claiming that the 70hp ITC car jumped to 89 (a 19hp gain) at the wheels but the 92hp ITB car only goes to 105 (13hp) you need to understand that the stock intake and exhaust on the Civic Standard (ITC) is comically tiny. Thats not the case with the DX (ITB).
See... More knowledge.

I gots lots of knowledge, and I share all of it freely. I guess you guys just decided to put me in the "I can only get 175whp out of my E36" category and ignore it.

Andy Bettencourt

02-22-2008, 12:33 AM

Show me how 105whp isn't more than 25% over 92 stock crank...seriously - my math could be wrong.

Here is what I get:

92 * 1.25 = 115 crank. .85 for FWD losses on the rollers = 97.75whp

Your 105whp target = 123+ crank hp. That's alomst a 34% increase, no?

I am having trouble reconciling your 105whp target on a 92 crank hp motor vs. your "I couldn't get over 25% out of this motor if I cheated." comment - topped off with the 'we got it wrong' statement as fact. It IS late, I could be FUBARing this math for sure.

Catch22

02-22-2008, 01:02 AM

Sorry. I misunderstood how you did your math. I thought you were adding 25% to the stock rated number.

So you are saying that you guys somehow decided the Protege *couldn't* do those kind of numbers?
Help me out here.

Show me the Protege "process" vs. the Civic "process." You said you would if I shared my numbers.
I shared my numbers.
You're gonna have to show me how the car with 11 less stock hp ended up 100lbs heavier via the "process." I'm not gonna get it if you don't show me.
I guess I'm kinda dumb.

Bill Miller

02-22-2008, 01:05 AM

Show me how 105whp isn't more than 25% over 92 stock crank...seriously - my math could be wrong.

Here is what I get:

92 * 1.25 = 115 crank. .85 for FWD losses on the rollers = 97.75whp

Your 105whp target = 123+ crank hp. That's alomst a 34% increase, no?

Since you like to play this numbers game Andy, and since Scott was kind enough to give us his expected hp, how about you do the analysis on the Mazda?

103hp stock + 25% gain from IT prep is ~129chp, less 15% driveline loss puts you ~110. That' still more than Scott's Civic, and the Mazda is 100# lighter. Double wishbone suspension is worth 125 - 150#?

And there are plenty of other cars you can analyze. Starting to look more and more like the Mazda should be an ITB car at somewhere between 2225 and 2250#. That's ~150# of the published curb weight. Hardly what I would call 'unachievable'.

Andy Bettencourt

02-22-2008, 01:12 AM

Catch22

02-22-2008, 01:29 AM

The point is that we used numbers we know to be true and realistic in the classification of your car and we used the 25% 'estimate' for the Protege because we have no such knowledge base. Same way it's been done since the process was created.

Your car has the very realistic potential to make 35%+ over stock. The ITAC knows it and was classed accordingly.

Your car with 35% = 124.2
Protege with 25% = 128.75

And add in weight for the suspension that you say "will likely be the best handling car in the class".

It's really tough to apples to apples this stuff.

I hate to call you out Andy, but I have to because you are applying things to situations when it meets the needs of your argument and ignoring them when it doesn't.

So you are trying to tell me you guys KNEW the Civic DX could do 35%?
How? Who has ever built one?
Seriously. Who?

You can't apply what you know about the CRX/Civic Si because thats a completely different motor. And if you tell me "its a Honda thing" I'll just turn around and ask you why you didn't apply Miata gain rules to the Protege (and clearly if you went with 25% you didn't do that).

Seems like a LOT of bias going on there. Sorry Andy. Thats what it looks like.
You assigned 35% to the Honda based on what?
You assigned 25% to the Protege based on what?

And by the way, and I thought I made this clear before, 105 will just THRILL us. I'm not sure its actually going to happen. But if we don't get it nobody can.

PS - I'll also note in every one of your post about my car's numbers your numbers creep up slightly. Its already gone from "almost 34%" to "35%."
At the end of the day its probably actually going to be about 32%. I know of 2 ITA Miatas that got over 30%, so what happens if you apply THAT number to the Protege?

Apples to apples IS hard.
But unbiased apples to apples is admittedly also very hard.

PS - I'm not trying to bust your balls. I'm just not buying what you're selling.
I told you I didn't really agree with the 2240 well before I decided to build a car (anyway), but this Protege thing seriously solidifies my feelings on the matter.

Andy Bettencourt

02-22-2008, 01:47 AM

I hate to call you out Andy, but I have to because you are applying things to situations when it meets the needs of your argument and ignoring them when it doesn't.

So you are trying to tell me you guys KNEW the Civic DX could do 35%?
How? Who has ever built one?
Seriously. Who?

You can't apply what you know about the CRX/Civic Si because thats a completely different motor. And if you tell me "its a Honda thing" I'll just turn around and ask you why you didn't apply Miata gain rules to the Protege (and clearly if you went with 25% you didn't do that).

Seems like a LOT of bias going on there. Sorry Andy. Thats what it looks like.
You assigned 35% to the Honda based on what?
You assigned 25% to the Protege based on what?

And by the way, and I thought I made this clear before, 105 will just THRILL us. I'm not sure its actually going to happen. But if we don't get it nobody can.

PS - I'll also note in every one of your post about my car's numbers your numbers creep up slightly. Its already gone from "almost 34%" to "35%."
At the end of the day its probably actually going to be about 32%. I know of 2 ITA Miatas that got over 30%, so what happens if you apply THAT number to the Protege?

Apples to apples IS hard.
But unbiased apples to apples is admittedly also very hard.

PS - I'm not trying to bust your balls. I'm just not buying what you're selling.
I told you I didn't really agree with the 2240 well before I decided to build a car (anyway), but this Protege thing seriously solidifies my feelings on the matter.

No issues here. Questioning the process is always something that will happen and we can handle.

- There is plenty of Honda knowledge on the ITAC. Bob clark is our lead guy.
- Who is applying anything to do with the Si? It's a different scenario that may have the same result - possible, right?
- Miata is a DOHC, this is a single cammer - why compare them?
- On the 105whp: I asked you for a number, you gave it to me - and it validated +/- 3hp our educated estimate
- Bias? Just trying to apply what we know. When we DON'T know, we use 25%. Funny how half the builders tell us we are boneheads for using such a high number and half laugh at such a low figure. The system is NOT perfect. We can only go by what we know and best guesses from there.
- I don't think my numbers are creeping at all. I used YOUR number to get to 'almost 34%' to illustrate that your math was way off and I said we knew the car had the potential for 35%+ when we classed it. Different contexts.
- Not sure why you keep using the Miata as an example...but guess what? We KNEW the 1.6 could make 30% more than stock - and that is WHAT WAS USED in it's classification.

Hey dude, bust away. At least you are being polite about it! :happy204:

Catch22

02-22-2008, 02:10 AM

Andy Bettencourt

02-22-2008, 09:49 AM

I'll keep this as simple as possible...

You DO NOT have anyone on the ITAC that had any clue what the Civic DX could do in terms of HP when you classed it.
You didn't. You couldn't have, because I'm pretty sure nobody ever built one. You could guess, but you could also guess on the Protege. Right?

So... You just said...
"When we DON'T know, we use 25%."

But you used 35% for the Civic, based on some untested, unknown assumptions.
Then you added even more weight for the DW suspension.

See Andy. Thats Bias.
A bias you DIDN'T apply to the Protege.

See?
Thats why I'm busting your balls.

PS - What exactly was the penalty for the double wishbone in the "process?"
100lbs might be reasonable for a 175hp ITS car, but I'd go out on a limb and say its excessive for a 100hp ITB car.

I gave you numbers. Give me some numbers.

Sorry man, we just don't agree. You think we are within 5hp of your goal by sheer luck? I asked you what your realistic goals were to proactlively validate the ITAC estimate. You say we DON'T have anyone with the knowledge yet you are 'pretty sure' nobody has built one? Come on. How is it you have a goal of 105whp when YOU have never built one? See how those two things don't mesh? Did you factor in power AT ALL when you decided you thought you could build a car that could win? Of course you did.

Every car gets 25% unless we have some other knowledge - plus or minus. Do you think it's bias when the S2000 gets 15% and the 325 BMW gets 30% in ITR? Nope.

Your car has a process weight of 2240. Power in IT-prep with a 100% build was estimated at 128. Pretty darn close to your 123 goal in which anything above that would be gravy. That gives you a base weight of 2189. Add 50 for DW and you get 2239 rounded up to 2240.

There ARE people who have told me that 50lbs for a DW car is just not enough, so opinions vary on that. Like I told someone last night via PM, this thing is not perfect, we all know it. We are trying to 'cluster' cars, not hit a bullseye...because the 'process' isn't good enough...but it sure as hell has a bunch of people building and racing cars that have never been considered.

In the end, I am sure we will end up agreeing to disagree on the power number applied. I am just the messenger. We rely as a committee on the collective knowledge, of which on Honduhs, I have none.

flaboy

02-22-2008, 10:43 AM

Well i'm thinking good bye ITC vw...and build my 94 Protege i have.

Tim

JamesB

02-22-2008, 11:37 AM

Givin that bunnies are harder and harder to find when you smash one up, why not go with something later model. If it can do well it could turn out fun. Heck, ever since the mini got classed in B I been dreaming of building one. I just don't have that kind of money lying around and I have two good mk2 golfs preped for ITB, both easilly and legally got down under the min weight. (to the point that my roller coaster ride of loosing and gaining 20# has nearly burnt me from one season to the next last year.)

ddewhurst

02-22-2008, 01:05 PM

Scott, Bob Clark is connected with King MotorSports.

Catch22

02-22-2008, 02:10 PM

You think we are within 5hp of your goal by sheer luck?

Yes. I do.
And you are within 5hp on the top end of my top end. So it really isn't THAT close now is it?

And for the record, I'm not saying the Civic is too heavy. What I'm saying is that (in my opinion) the process was not fairly applied.
I don't care if Bob is associated with King Motorsports, Mugen, OPM, or Mr. Honda himself. I'm betting he's never built, tested, or even SEEN a D15B2 Honda IT motor.
Yet a whopping 35% was used. A full 10% higher than other "unkinowns" like the Protege.

Not remotely kosher in my opinion.

Because of my experience, I'm probably one of the most knowlegeable people in the country in terms of what this motor can make, and even I don't KNOW. Certainly not enough to saddle it with a 35% tag.
This thing might make 110whp. It also might make 99. We just don't know. As far as anyone can tell I'm building the first one EVER.

And by the way, using Andy math 99whp would be about a 27% increase. Thats a long way from 35% when you are talking about power numbers that aint all that big in the first place.
10 horsepower is a big deal in classes like ITB and ITC.

Just sayin.

ScotMac

02-22-2008, 02:20 PM

tnord

02-22-2008, 02:53 PM

I don't care if Bob is associated with King Motorsports, Mugen, OPM, or Mr. Honda himself.

Because of my experience, I'm probably one of the most knowlegeable people in the country in terms of what this motor can make.

:blink:

I love it.

DavidM

02-22-2008, 02:53 PM

Catch22

02-22-2008, 02:56 PM

I have to agree w/ Andy here. They made a decision based on the knowledge they had. That is all we can ask. They thought that the dx engine could do 35%, and now we have an example that is "going to be about 32%". Sounds like the ITAC did a good job.

Is it just me?
Am I not typing clearly?

I'm pretty sure I never said it is "going to be about 32%."
That is the goal. The upper target. The "HOORAY!!!"
And we have no idea if we can actually GET IT. But we're trying.

See... We don't KNOW.
Neither does the ITAC.

Thats my point. I'll try to make this as clear as possible...
Didn't KNOW with the Civic... 35%
Didn't KNOW with the Protege... 25%

The actual results don't matter here. It doesn't matter if my finished car makes 95, 105, or 115whp. The point is that the process wasn't applied fairly in this case.
See...?

I can't make it any clearer than that. And its like arguing with the referee anyway. So I guess I'm done.

Catch22

02-22-2008, 03:03 PM

:blink:

I love it.

I'm sure you do.
But I've built/tuned a maxed rules D15B dual point motor. I'm pretty sure nobody on the ITAC has. I'm also pretty sure there are only a handful of folks in the country that have done this, and THAT was on the D15B1 motor in ITC.
It IS NOT the same animal as the multi point D15 and D16 motors, so the same rules and knowledge should not apply.

If I'm wrong, and there actually was some experience and data on the table when this was done, I apologize in advance.
But I'm guessing if there was, Andy would have already let me know that. He hasn't. And I'm not sure where that data would have come from since I'm pretty sure nobody has ever built a full rules D15B2 motor.

So head on back over to where there is more at stake and stop slumming with us amatuer scrubs m'kay? You can pull quotes and use them out of context over there.

Andy Bettencourt

02-22-2008, 03:04 PM

So what happens when the 25% HP gain estimate is used to weight a car and then it turns out you can actually get 35% out of it? Does the weight of the car get changed? What happens if the 25% estimate is used and the car can only make 20%? Does the weight get changed? How bout if 35% is used and it can only do 25%?

If the ITAC plans on using real HP numbers from built cars (which they clearly do) then they had better put in place a process to re-evaluate the weight of cars every year or two based on current data.

David
David,

There is wording in the ITCS that allows changes to be made if a mistake is made that results in a shift in a classes balance.

Any 'new' data that resulted in anything less than 100lbs of weight 'correction' have not been considered in the past.

Andy Bettencourt

02-22-2008, 03:10 PM

I'm sure you do.
But I've built/tuned a maxed rules D15B dual point motor. I'm pretty sure nobody on the ITAC has. I'm also pretty sure there are only a handful of folks in the country that have done this, and THAT was on the D15B1 motor in ITC.
It IS NOT the same animal as the multi point D15 and D16 motors, so the same rules and knowledge should not apply.

If I'm wrong, and there actually was some experience and data on the table when this was done, I apologize in advance.
But I'm guessing if there was, Andy would have already let me know that. He hasn't. And I'm not sure where that data would have come from since I'm pretty sure nobody has ever built a full rules D15B2 motor.

So head on back over to where there is more at stake and stop slumming with us amatuer scrubs m'kay?
Scott,

Please stop. Don't state the ITAC doesn't have the info as fact and then ask for forgiveness IF you are wrong. You can't have it both ways.

I don't have the specific experience. We rely on the collective group. I can't talk in exacting detail from memory on what Bob has seen, built, tested, run in different config for LP Prod, mixed and matched, flow tested, learned from King, etc.

Done.

tnord

02-22-2008, 03:12 PM

So head on back over to where there is more at stake and stop slumming with us amatuer scrubs m'kay?

sorry buddy, you're the only one with the ego big enough to think that. after all, you were almost World Champion ITC driver, on top of being Honda motor super genious. :smilie_pokal:

Catch22

02-22-2008, 03:16 PM

You can't have it both ways either Andy.

Oh. Wait.
I guess you can.

Greg Amy

02-22-2008, 03:18 PM

If the ITAC plans on using real HP numbers from built cars (which they clearly do) then they had better put in place a process to re-evaluate the weight of cars every year or two based on current data.
+ eleventy billion

924Guy

02-22-2008, 03:40 PM

Woah, wait a minnit... you guys are dickering over +/- 5whp in the numbers here?!?

Is it really reasonable to expect that IT classifications and weights are going to be that exact???

I thought I (fairly recently) heard that it was felt that anything less than a 100# adjustment in weight of a car is basically noise. Well, surely something like +/- 5whp is about the same, no? Just how accurate is your dyno anyway???

Besides, and I won't ever claim to have paid much attention to the plight of the ITB Hondas, I think with anywhere from 100-110whp and a weight of around 2250 isn't gonna get you any sympathy from this side of the court... you've still got nearly 400lbs of advantage over this crappy old strut-suspensioned car with the same output... please... methinks thou doth protest too much!

ScotMac

02-22-2008, 03:56 PM

Is it just me?
Am I not typing clearly?

I'm pretty sure I never said it is "going to be about 32%."
That is the goal. The upper target. The "HOORAY!!!"
And we have no idea if we can actually GET IT. But we're trying.

See... We don't KNOW.
Neither does the ITAC.

Thats my point. I'll try to make this as clear as possible...
Didn't KNOW with the Civic... 35%
Didn't KNOW with the Protege... 25%

The actual results don't matter here. It doesn't matter if my finished car makes 95, 105, or 115whp. The point is that the process wasn't applied fairly in this case.
See...?

I can't make it any clearer than that. And its like arguing with the referee anyway. So I guess I'm done.

Yes, it is just you. I put the "going to be about 32%" in quotes, because it was an exact quote from YOU.

lateapex911

02-22-2008, 04:21 PM

David, as Andy pointed out, there are mechanisms in place to fix grievous errors. For the record, most cars are classed based on certain assumptions that relate to the "genre" of engines. Old crappy POS American OHV motors, rotaries, inline 4s with DOHC, etc.

In certain cases real world info is used, but it is used very infrequently, and only when the numbers have high confidence. (As in multiple independent sources, and those sources are beyond reproach, AND they match up)

That said, we all need to step back and remember where we came from, and the original goals of the whole exercise. Four or so years ago, things were in, shall we say, disarray, with a lot of lapses of logic in the classing. Simply, over the years, there was a lack of consistency, and frankly, for the majority of IT's history, the CRB has been in charge of classing, and they flat don't have the time to devote to the task. Hence, the Ad hocs were created.

The goal was to create a process that had structure and repeatibility, and that aimed to class cars based on empirical numbers, and reasonable esitimates. And the goal of the output was to get the cars grouped together so that different cars had better chances of running at the front at different tracks. Multi marque racing, with HUNDREDS of classified cars that need to fit in 5 classes...it's not easy. Perfection was never a goal, BUT, trying harder to get close ...really close, was.

Looking back these 4 short years shows how far we've come. Is it perfect? NO! Will it ever be? NO!

Our goals are to be consistent, to class cars fairly, where the builds are able to be accomplished by mere mortals. Kirk pointed out some of the subtleties of the classing process, like deciding whats reasonable to expect folks to do to achieve minimum weights. Some people feel that if a car can be gotten to min weight in a certain class via any method, it belongs in that class. Those methods include aluminum fasteners in every location possible, dipping and stripping the chassis, custom wheels, minimal cage,minimal fuel cell, carbon seat, hollow sway bars, and so on. Others feel thats silly, and think cars should be classed where folks can make the target weight without going to such extremes. The "can it make weight" question is tricky, and of course, requires a combination of real world knowledge and reasonable estimates based on logical assumptions. (mid engine 80s car with a cheap interior = not much to lose. late 90s BMW with high spec trim level, =lots to lose).

In the end though, we have to work with what we know, and within the guidelines we've established. Keep in mind though that horsepower estimates for a particular genre of engines are often lofty....it takes work to get there....but builders often surprise even us.

In this case, I find it ironic that the complaint is that the estimate is so close to the self proclaimed expert's number.

Z3_GoCar

02-22-2008, 04:43 PM

...In certain cases real world info is used, but it is used very infrequently, and only when the numbers have high confidence. (As in multiple independent sources, and those sources are beyond reproach, AND they match up)

....In the end though, we have to work with what we know, and within the guidelines we've established. Keep in mind though that horsepower estimates for a particular genre of engines are often lofty....it takes work to get there....but builders often surprise even us.

In this case, I find it ironic that the complaint is that the estimate is so close to the self proclaimed expert's number.

So, when Matt Kessler built Doc Bro's motor and was only able to get 136hp at the wheels, that's not a reason to reevaluate the horse power potential of this model? Seems to me that's a shortfall of 15-20hp, isn't that significant enough to reexamine the assumption of what's possible?

James

Andy Bettencourt

02-22-2008, 05:13 PM

So, when Matt Kessler built Doc Bro's motor and was only able to get 136hp at the wheels, that's not a reason to reevaluate the horse power potential of this model? Seems to me that's a shortfall of 15-20hp, isn't that significant enough to reexamine the assumption of what's possible?

James
Two issues:

First, these in-exact number excersizes are done using DynoJet figures. The Doc's numbers are from a Dyna-Pack. If you do the traditionally accepted conversion, he is right in the zone - without a programmable ECU. That's conservatively 148whp on a Jet (using 9% - some say 12%). Back out to get projected crank numbers (again conservatively using 15% losses instead of 18%)? 174ish. Target process hp for the Z3? 175.

Second - take the other Kessler-creation. Greg's 156whp (IIRC) SR20. Also Pack numbers. This time on the 'plus' side of the estimate.

Neither car gets re-evaluated because they are singular examples without the sheer quantity of backup we would need to change a spec retroactively. It would also need to fall under a PCA where it was changing the balance of power in ITA, which I don't think it has. Successful? You bet, but not unbeatable.

At the end of the day, we try and get everyone into the same pocket of performance. It can never be exact, but we will use what we know when we are sure we know it. In the two above cases - I am not sure of anything given two individual examples with nothing else.

I hope that makes sense.

dickita15

02-22-2008, 07:27 PM

Dick, the answer is yes. But if your third link breaks do you really want to see the results without at least one upper OEM link in place. I can only imagine the damage which WILL occure when you have only two lower links.

That is probably sound advice David, I have seen that particular failure.

lateapex911

02-22-2008, 07:30 PM

Catch22

02-22-2008, 08:22 PM

In this case, I find it ironic that the complaint is that the estimate is so close to the self proclaimed expert's number.

You guys are disappointing the shit out of me.

That IS NOT the complaint.

The complaint is that you are willing to take a guess on one car (and it was a guess. I see no evidence otherwise) and saddle it with a 35% theoretical increase, but you don't take that guess on another car.
In this case it is the Civic vs Protege, but I'm guessing there are others.

I can't make it any clearer than that, and the actual results don't matter. Its the (what I feel) bias that appears to be evident in the system.

No. I dont expect it to be perfect. It can't be.
But it will be even less perfect if stuff like this keeps happening.

Andy clearly stated that the ITAC used 25% when they don't know what a car can do. And you guys don't know what a DX can do. Nobody does.
But you used 35%, which isn't a short leap from 25%.
See?
Probably not.

Scott, who was happier 24 hours ago when he was more ignorant on this subject.

gran racing

02-22-2008, 08:36 PM

Enough reading. :D

We'll always want to improve upon the classifications and attempt to make cars more equal. That's not a bad thing. I will also say we're so far ahead of where we were not too long ago. Here I am complaining about the darn Golf III being too lite (although I still think it's a valid argument :p) when originally I was getting my ass whooped by ITA cars with a response of "not guaranteed competitiveness" BS.

Scott, when you started this ITB build I can't imagine you didn't consider if the car could win. I'm calling the BS egg if you say you didn't. Sounds like you're familiar with the car but are not totally sure what it's full potential is - no one has ever built a full-out one yet (those are your words) - but you're not silly enough to build a car that doesn't have a shot?

Regarding the Z3, yeah, Matt built the engine but does that mean he's done with the car especially related to the ECU? (Matt built my engine among other things and have the utmost highest regard for his work. He's just that good!)

ddewhurst

02-22-2008, 08:46 PM

Hey Jake, obviously you need to take your rotor motor to Matt.

gran racing

02-22-2008, 09:14 PM

If Matt (http://www.kesslereng.com (http://www.kesslereng.com/)) did those silly rotary engines, I'm sure he would. I honestly cannot think of anyone I'd rather have my car built by - give him a large Rolex 24 build budget and I know he'd kick some butt.

Bill Miller

02-22-2008, 09:19 PM

Certainly an interesting discussion, but would one of the ITAC members take a shot at this?

How do you end up w/ two cars that are essentially equals on paper end up 140# apart, were they to be in the same class? But the even bigger question is, why aren't two cars that have such similar physical attributes in the same class?

I know Andy has said that the Protege may look like a Golf on paper. I'd like to know what exactly is different between these cars (from a standpoint that would impact the race weight). The motors are damn near identical in performance, and they're both FWD strut cars.

Look at it from the perspective of someone that's new to this game. "Gee, our cars have pretty much the same stock specs, and they're essentially the same layout, why does his run in ITC and mine run in ITB?"

MMiskoe

02-22-2008, 09:41 PM

dipping and stripping the chassis

Acid dipping to remove all the seam sealer? We can do that? I didn't think that was OK, so I looked & I don't see it.

I'll perger (sp?) myself and admit that I also can't find where it's OK for me to have removed sound deadening materials.

BTW Jake, If you're going to use the big font, you should give us the big version of your avatar too!

Matt

lateapex911

02-23-2008, 03:46 AM

Matt, join the crowd yearning for a larger avatar allowance. Thats as many pixels as allowed by law, sorry!

The best I can do is offer you a click: (see below):cool:

And I misspoke regarding the removal of seam sealer...I was just using the generic term. However, there has been recent debate regarding the removal of the asphalt sheets of sound deadening. It's been commonly done for years, but a sharp eyed newcomer noted that it's not actually stated in the ITCS/GCR. A revised rule that matches the original intent, is on the horizon, that calls out the material and includes it with other legal to remove items. If not I don't recall the timing of the implementation, but it's in the works, and should be approved in the future.

(Good thing too, it was accepted practice and has been done by the majority of fresh builds...we'd have a lot of illegal cars out there...but, that wasn't the thinking behind the revision...we went to the guys who were around in the begining and determined that it matched the original intent.)

lateapex911

02-23-2008, 03:51 AM

Hey Jake, obviously you need to take your rotor motor to Matt.

If only it were that easy. (I am sorta proud to say that after an "incident" testing at Lime Rock this spring, I did my own build, and took that motor to Ohio, where it ran just fine.)

Dave Gomberg

02-23-2008, 08:57 AM

...However, there has been recent debate regarding the removal of the asphalt sheets of sound deadening. It's been commonly done for years, but a sharp eyed newcomer noted that it's not actually stated in the ITCS/GCR. A revised rule that matches the original intent, is on the horizon, that calls out the material and includes it with other legal to remove items. If not I don't recall the timing of the implementation, but it's in the works, and should be approved in the future.

This change is in the current (March) FasTrack - Tech Bulletin, IT item 5. It will be effective on 3/1/08.

Dave

Greg Amy

02-23-2008, 10:41 AM

....there has been recent debate regarding the removal of the asphalt sheets of sound deadening.

Did I miss a completely pointless debate somewhere in this forum? 9.1.3.D.9.f says, "Carpets, center consoles, floor mats, headliners, sun roof liner and frame, dome lights, grab handles, and their insulating, attaching or operating mechanisms may be removed."

Those asphalt/rubber sheets are sound insulation; how can anyone interpret they are (or were) not legal to remove? Are you guys assuming insulation means "heat only" versus any kind of insulation (insul-/insulate, as in "to cover, line, or separate with a material that prevents or reduces the passage, transfer, or leakage of heat, electricity, or sound"). Why waste time on a perfectly good rule when there are SO many others we can loophole through?

If so, you guys are/were thinking WAAAAAY too far inside the box. And that's even inside the OLD SKOOL (not "Greg's New Paradigm") box... - GA

PSherm

02-23-2008, 11:37 AM

and their insulating, attaching or operating mechanisms may be removed."

That's the way I read it when I spent a week cleaning all that crap off the floor of my car..... :D

Andy Bettencourt

02-23-2008, 12:09 PM

Greg,

The clarification request came from a guy who works inside the industry. Reading the rule CLOSELY, it only allows the insulation material OF THE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED items.

"Melt sheets' are not the insulating material of any of those items. It doesn't say you can remove ALL insulating material, just the IM associated with those items. Yes, melt sheets can be considered sound deadening but it really doesn't say you can remove it.

It was a fresh read from a new member who works in the industry and is familiar with the terminology. The addition of some words was easy.

We 'wasted' the time because a specific request came in to clarify. We also agreed with your request for change/clarification and 'wasted' time on that too! :) If people feel there are loopholes that they would like closed, PLEASE send in a request and some proposed wording.

Dave Gomberg

02-23-2008, 12:50 PM

With regard to questions raised earlier, let me offer some insight.

Fuel port in a return line: as long as there is sufficient pressure (flow) in the line to provide the sample in a reasonable time, this is fine. So that there won't be questions, we will probably add a new second sentence that will be along the lines of:

"The fuel port may be installed in the return line if there is sufficient pressure to provide the sample without undue delay."

Types of fittings/ports: the major reason for the rewrite of the fuel test section is that there are many setups that squirt/spray/leak fuel when they are opened. The potential danger is too great to ignore. If your setup doesn't meet the new criteria, you will need to change it when the rule goes into effect (doing it sooner is encouraged). If you have a dry-break setup, it might lose a drop or two when opened. That's not what is targeted here.

Dave

lateapex911

02-23-2008, 01:40 PM

Greg, the key word in that rule was " 'Their' insulating....."

dickita15

02-23-2008, 01:57 PM

Did I miss a completely pointless debate somewhere in this forum?
yes :rolleyes:

ddewhurst

02-23-2008, 03:35 PM

Talking about ruleS & what one may do & what one may not do how many of you have read the latest SportsCar article where the one & only editor of the mag while building the "Project Miata" ITA car defeated the steering lock including showing a picture rather than removing the lock as the rule specifies. < That was a run on question I think.:shrug:

What a nice way to lead people down the wrong path & then he had the balls to e-mail me back saying the INTENT of the rule.:bash_1_:

***"Melt sheets' are not the insulating material of any of those items. It doesn't say you can remove ALL insulating material, just the IM associated with those items. Yes, melt sheets can be considered sound deadening but it really doesn't say you can remove it.***

Oh great, I wouldn't race my new Spec Miat untill after the item is in Fastrack. I call the seam sealer insulation. What do you call it?

***It was a fresh read from a new member who works in the industry and is familiar with the terminology.***

Another Oh great, we have a new member who works in the industry therefore the ITAC shall change the rule. :happy204:

Don't get me started on items that have been sent to the CRB (trickle down to SMAC & ITAC) & to my knowledge NOTHING has been completed & the suggested sentence clean up also has not happened. Maybe this NEW GUY willl make a same suggestion & then someone will see fit to do something.

lateapex911

02-23-2008, 05:12 PM

Another Oh great, we have a new member who works in the industry therefore the ITAC shall change the rule. :happy204:

Don't get me started on items that have been sent to the CRB (trickle down to SMAC & ITAC) & to my knowledge NOTHING has been completed & the suggested sentence clean up also has not happened. Maybe this NEW GUY willl make a same suggestion & then someone will see fit to do something.

David, I can't remember anything you've written us that needed attention. I can't say what you have or haven't written to the CRB or the BoD, but I can't recall anything that was an ITAC item that was ignored. Since you used the term "trickle down" I am led to think that your letters haven't been directed at the ITAC.

Let's not get all upset that a guy wrote a well reasoned letter, and it was attended to. That's the way the system is supposed to work.

If YOU wrote the SAME letter to us, it would have gotten the SAME response.

If you're Po'ed at the CRB, that's another issue, and needs to be addressed to them.

ddewhurst

02-23-2008, 06:34 PM

Jake, I'd like to pm you if you would keep it to yourself. How does the pm work on this new site? :shrug: Some stuff don't need to be beat to death on this site. Or ask Andy.:D

Andy Bettencourt

02-23-2008, 08:59 PM

Jake, I'd like to pm you if you would keep it to yourself. How does the pm work on this new site? :shrug: Some stuff don't need to be beat to death on this site. Or ask Andy.:D
David,

IIRC, you wrote a letter asking for a certain cage design to be specifically called out as illegal. It is not the job of the Ad-Hoc's to determine legality. In this case, it's the local inspectors job.

MMiskoe

02-23-2008, 09:31 PM

Geeze guys, didin't mean to make aeveryone mad. I saw Jake's comment about dipping & didn't think it was OK, so I actually read the parts about removal (novel concept to actually read the GCR). While I was reading it I recognized that I didn't actually see where sound deadening (melt sheet or otherwise) was called out. All the other crap on the interior is pretty well defined, but melt sheets & other under-carpet flotsum is not.

When I read "and their insulating materials" I hear stuff like the foam attached to the headliner. Fiber insulation that is adheared to the fire wall w/ metal clips is not an insulating material directly associated w/ the carpet since there is no carpet in that area. It is sound deadening material. Nothing else.

So check 1 for the CRB/ITAC for spotting & closing a potential question.

shwah

02-24-2008, 12:16 AM

I know Andy has said that the Protege may look like a Golf on paper. I'd like to know what exactly is different between these cars (from a standpoint that would impact the race weight). The motors are damn near identical in performance, and they're both FWD strut cars.

Look at it from the perspective of someone that's new to this game. "Gee, our cars have pretty much the same stock specs, and they're essentially the same layout, why does his run in ITC and mine run in ITB?"

I wonder the same thing. What differentiates the cars to such a degree? I can buy that the VW has the potential to be a small amount off of 'process' weight, but even considering that how does the Mazda come out at such a low ITB weight? That thing just seems like a natural B car to me. What specifically makes it lose to the VW in the process?

mbuskuhl

02-24-2008, 12:18 AM

The sound deadening issue was discussed in November. Here was the thread...

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22914

Read it for those who missed, see who stood where.

I call BS and still do, but heck if some think the GCR needed a clarification so be it. Here's why...

TAR removal is LEGAL.

9.1.3.D.9.f. "Carpets, center consoles, floor mats, headliners, sun roof liner and frame, dome lights, grab handles, and their insulating, attaching or operating mechanisms may be removed."

Break it down, remove the other components for a minute... "Carpets and their insulating mechanisms may be removed"

Everyone agree what carpet is? What is "their insulating mechanisms"? The GCR does not define any of these words, so I did here. The answer is below. Look like the stuff you took out?

http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/Product...0002668/c-10101 (http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/Product/tf-Browse/s-10101/Pr-p_Product.CATENTRY_ID:2002973/p-2002973/N-111+10201+600002668/c-10101)

http://www.ioportracing.com/instruct...m3-rollbar.htm (http://www.ioportracing.com/instructions/e36m3-rollbar.htm)
"remove the sound insulation material from the floor to achieve the best fit although this is not always necessary. This tar-like material can be chipped away using a wood chisel."

http://www.autoatlanta.net/action.lasso?-d...ords=10&-search (http://www.autoatlanta.net/action.lasso?-database=AAdatabase&-layout=Items&-response=results.lasso&-operator=eq&partnumber3=WU890100&-maxrecords=10&-search)

Call the stuff what you want but what deadens sound? Insulation. What is the insulation made of? Tar. What's under your cars carpet to insulate? Tar. Insulation is NOT limited to a synthetic fiber like pad.

Andy Bettencourt

02-24-2008, 09:18 AM

I wonder the same thing. What differentiates the cars to such a degree? I can buy that the VW has the potential to be a small amount off of 'process' weight, but even considering that how does the Mazda come out at such a low ITB weight? That thing just seems like a natural B car to me. What specifically makes it lose to the VW in the process?

What happens is that the cars are run through the base process. You throw adders onto the base weight number and evaluate it for 'doability'.

What that means is taking a look at the curb weights and making an esitmate on if the car can either make weight - or if it would be too heavy to make sense to build.

Given the estimation on the cars ability to make ITB weight, it was deemed a much more realistic classification in ITC.

Now it's really tough to compare with just any car classed in the ITCS. First, some cars are legacy listings that have not been reset vis the process. All have been 'checked' and the ones that were outside 100lbs 'off', were reset. Some went up, some went down.

A few things are possible when looking at this VW question: 1. It's a legacy car that could be 'off'. 2. It may be prohibitively light for ITB and should be considered for ITC - again somthing that some legacy cars may exibit because they all haven't been 100% evaluated. 3. The power multiplier (like the Honda example in this thread) may dictate a different weight, making two cars that look similar on paper, fall into two categories at vastly different weights just because one stepped over that line.

Remember, we only have 5 classes to fit cars into so when one has to move, it looks like a big jump.

I am guessing we have people trying to compare a 'legacy' VW to a new classification which will often not look like the two apples people want to see.

Andy Bettencourt

02-24-2008, 09:25 AM

Call the stuff what you want but what deadens sound? Insulation. What is the insulation made of? Tar. What's under your cars carpet to insulate? Tar. Insulation is NOT limited to a synthetic fiber like pad.
The point Mark is that 'sound' isn't listed as an item for which IT'S insulating material may be removed. We have all fallen into the trap of thinking that rule says 'all insulating meterial can be removed', when that is not what it says.

It was pointed out to us that these 'melt sheets' are not carpet insulation and hence, can not be removed as per the written rule.

It is obvious that this is the intent, so the wording was added to say so.

Greg Amy

02-24-2008, 09:29 AM

It is obvious that this is the intent, so the wording was added to say so.
You guys are playing right into the hands of "The New Paradigm"... ;)

"Here kitty, kitty, kitty, kitty..."

Andy Bettencourt

02-24-2008, 10:50 AM

You guys are playing right into the hands of "The New Paradigm"... ;)

"Here kitty, kitty, kitty, kitty..."
Come on Greg, if you have a problem with this one, then you will never be happy.

JeffYoung

02-24-2008, 11:17 AM

Been following this thread. Basically, we are having a fight over:

1. A rule that everyone agrees with?

2. One car potentially being 65 lbs out of whack?

shwah

02-24-2008, 12:32 PM

Jeff - not sure if you are referring to the Honda-Mazda discussion or the VW-Mazda discussion. My question was just with which class the Mazda landed in. At this point I think my question has been answered.

If some Proteges are built down the road and the racers find that they are carrying lots of ballast to fit in C, then maybe the question of whether it should move to B could be raised by one of those racers. Otherwise - I'm fine with it.

Greg Amy

02-24-2008, 12:44 PM

Come on Greg, if you have a problem with this one, then you will never be happy.
It all goes back to that loooong thread we had in regards to using common sense interpretations and enforcement via saying "no" to twisted/weenie interpretations.

Rules interpretations that require input from "a guy who works inside the industry" (whether you accept that line of reasoning or not) don't - by their very definition - use common sense. By clarifying this rule in such a manner, you are validating the "letter of the rules" interpretation of those who say common sense/spirit of the rules is not what counts, it's the verbiage you choose to use to describe it, good or bad.

That, my friend, is a tail-chasing game you will never win.

On the other hand, as to your comment in regards to "[my] request for change/clarification" (for those that don't know, I was the one that wrote in requesting verbiage change on ITCS 9.1.3.B "Intent"), I had two very real telephone discussions as a Tech Inspector with two very real, very new, "Joe Schmoe's" (not on this board, as far as I know, or at least they weren't back then) who each, independently, pointed out to me that the IIDSYCTYC rule says - in black and white and right up front in the main Intent section - you can do anything you want to the car as long as it's not for the purpose of obtaining a competitive advantage. And, in black in white, it sure does say that. Thus, my RFC.

Ergo, comparing a change to an allowance rule that has been common-sensely accepted and enforced the same way for nearly a quarter-century based on a "requiring industry insider" clarification, to a very generalized "Joe Schmoe" reading of a disallowance rule that says you can - that, while generally accepted one way is in an ever-growing age of competitors taking advantage of The New Paradigm - is disingenuous. The only true comparison argument one can rightly make is that both clarify/illustrate their original intent, though from opposite sides of the spectrum, and at least are not a "rule change" in its true sense.

I'd personal prefer that my request not be directly compared to a "weenie protest" type of correction. If you disagree - or fail to understand the difference - maybe you'd like to remove my request from the table and put the verbiage back the way it was? Possibly in the future expect I'll choose to take advantage of such glaring loopholes well before I pass the info along for others to use...?

Just sayin'.

:shrug:

Bill Miller

02-24-2008, 03:38 PM

What happens is that the cars are run through the base process. You throw adders onto the base weight number and evaluate it for 'doability'.

What that means is taking a look at the curb weights and making an esitmate on if the car can either make weight - or if it would be too heavy to make sense to build.

Given the estimation on the cars ability to make ITB weight, it was deemed a much more realistic classification in ITC.

Now it's really tough to compare with just any car classed in the ITCS. First, some cars are legacy listings that have not been reset vis the process. All have been 'checked' and the ones that were outside 100lbs 'off', were reset. Some went up, some went down.

A few things are possible when looking at this VW question: 1. It's a legacy car that could be 'off'. 2. It may be prohibitively light for ITB and should be considered for ITC - again somthing that some legacy cars may exibit because they all haven't been 100% evaluated. 3. The power multiplier (like the Honda example in this thread) may dictate a different weight, making two cars that look similar on paper, fall into two categories at vastly different weights just because one stepped over that line.

Remember, we only have 5 classes to fit cars into so when one has to move, it looks like a big jump.

I am guessing we have people trying to compare a 'legacy' VW to a new classification which will often not look like the two apples people want to see.

Andy,

I am sure you are familiar w/ the phrase 'perception is reality'.

And one of the problems you have w/ not adjusting 'legacy' cars if they were w/in 100# of their process weight, is that you create a case where you have a potential 200# differential between two cars. One is 100# high, and the other is 100# low. That's a very real difference in any class, and even more so in lower hp classes like ITB and ITC.

I would suggest that if you're shooting at a 100# 'window', then you should narrow your range on the legacy cars to +/- 50#, not +/- 100#.

And out of curiosity, what is the process weight for the Mk II Golf/Jetta 1.8 8v for ITB? Also, what is the cutoff that you guys (ITAC) use when deciding if a car can't make its process weight for the higher class?

ddewhurst

02-24-2008, 03:39 PM

Greg, thank's for the Sunday giggles.:smilie_pokal:

Mark, I'm with you, any of the insulating stuff what ever Andy & his new best industry friend want to call it gets taken OUT. Mark, you to.:smilie_pokal:

Andy, ya going to send out a message to ALL local tech inspectors to DQ the cars that don't have this insulating stuff?

Andy, you people fcuk around with whatever the hell you want to call that stuff that's under the carpet but your not capable of straightening out the illegal roll cages in Spec Miata, Showroom Stock & Improved Touring cars. Then it all gets shoved to the local tech inspectors when the written rules at the get go provide loop holes for illegal roll cages.

***IIRC, you wrote a letter asking for a certain cage design to be specifically called out as illegal. It is not the job of the Ad-Hoc's to determine legality. In this case, it's the local inspectors job.***

Andy, below is a shortened version of the letter I sent to a CRB member. He forwarded the letter to the SMAC & IMHJ should have sent the letter to the Showroom Stock folks & the Improved Touring folks. Most of what I left out of this copy below is the pictures with captions for clarification to the CRB. My quest was for the CRB to determin the leaglity of the Spec Miata, ITA Miata & Showrom Stock roll cages. Silly ME, I thought they would carry through to completion. I guess I'll need to write another letter which will spoon feed everyone who will be involved. It is not hard to figure out why SCCA members don't get involved. It is just flat out way to much bull shit dealing with people while they are high up on their soap boxs. If you viewed the pictures I forwarded to the CRB do you beleive there are some illegal Spec Miata & ITA Miata roll cages out there? A fact for you Andy, the CRB member e-mailed me that he would advise me of the out come. I'M STILL WATING. Not an issue because I'm going to write a second letter that will be as straight forward with all the correct requests that I am able to write.

Through my understanding of the written rules for the Spec Miata class & the written rules for the Showroon Stock roll cages the above identified items which have been modified are all illegal.

I don't know the following to be factual but I will presume the following item Spec Miata Specification rule 9.1.8.C.8.e. (Second sentence, Italicized to present my premumed point. Other than to provide for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment alterations or gutting are ppermitted.) may be one of the flyers that people use to conclude that tourching & moving Miata OEM items as indicated within this letter & the include picture attachments is legal. I do not buy into the prusumed thought that one may do whatever they want when installing a roll cage.

Please confirm or deny that the roll cage for a Spec Miata described within this letter is illegal. Out of my request for a determination of these type modifications being legal or illegal my solution to eliminating these illegal roll cages is to close the loop holes within the existing written rules.

Also people in the Improved Touring world use two similar ITCS rules (9.1.3.D.9.c. the second sentence & 9.1.3.D.9.f. the third sentemce) to declare open season on whatever gets in their way while implementing a roll cage.

Andy Bettencourt

02-24-2008, 04:35 PM

Greg,

I underderstand your point fully. Unfortunately, we do not have the culture to work within the common sense barriers. As soon as I see the curriculum that is training all our tech inspectors nationwide on said system, we can enforce the rulebook as such.

In other words, I agree with you in principle - but in practical application, it's not possible right now. Especially if the foundation of the ITCS is IIDSYCTYC.

The question is how do we change the culture?

re: your letter, we thought it too had merit. Different foundation but stuff I am sure many would agree wasn't needed. We made the change because we thought it made sense. Clarifying a rule is just not a bad thing IMHO - whether it's nuts and bolts, or philosophy. Sorry, I don't classify either as 'wasted time'.

David,

'Best industry friend'? Are you serious? A fresh read of the rule from someone who ACTUALLY KNOWS what stuff is, made a request to clarify. It was done because we agreed with his statement. Simple. Same thing with the current front sway bar rule. Upon reading it, it doesn't say you can remove it. We changed it to match up with what we ALL thought you could do already. Same thing...if you don't like it, fine. Send a letter in requesting we don't clarify stuff like that, and our con-calls might not have to go 3 hours.

As far as your letter, I read in in full. You are asking the SMAC to make a ruling on a specific cages design. That is simply not in the scope of what they do. It's not what the CRB does either. There are official channels to get those rulings.

Let's say you do go through the correct channels and it's determined those cages are ILLEGAL. Then what? It's still up to the local tech guys to be good at what they do, no? You're barking up the wrong tree with the SMAC / ITAC.

Bill M.,

You and I have become unproductive in debate so I have decided to not answer your questions/provocations at least for the forseable future for the benfit of both of our sanity and IT.com's benefit.

shwah

02-24-2008, 04:49 PM

Dave,

I hear what you are saying, but based on my little experience with SCCA, the only real way to resolve that issue is to protest the car(s) in question. I can't send pictures and specs of a cam to the ITAC and ask them if it is legal. I can ask for clarification from Topeka (which for some dumb ass reason is not a binding response), or I can protest a car with said cam, and watch it go through the appeal process - which is the only way to verify legality of anything as far as I can tell.

I don't think that is a great place to be in, but I think that is where we are on issues like that.

JoshS

02-24-2008, 05:06 PM

Just speaking in generalities because I don't have any actual letters in front of me:

Chris is right. If you don't know whether something is legal or not, you have to ask someone in rules enforcement, not legislators. The CRB and its ad-hocs are legislators -- they write law. They don't rule on individual examples. The "judicial branch" would do that, and assess penalties.

If you already know the answer, and think the rules need to be changed, then THAT'S what you need to say to the legislators (CRB and ad-hocs).

Your letter should say: Cages of this particular design are legal by the current rules. They should not be legal for the following reasons. Please change the rule to read xxx instead of yyy.

That way you are asking them to do something that they have the authority to do. They may still choose not to do it, but at least it's something they COULD do.

wbp

02-24-2008, 05:46 PM

To come here and ask a member of the ITAC to make a ruling on legality of a vehicle or compenent, or even to ask the ITAC formally, is out of order. GCR 8.1.4 describes the process for this determination. It was modified by the January Fastrack under Item 1 of the GCR section.

ddewhurst

02-24-2008, 08:58 PM

****As far as your letter, I read in in full. You are asking the SMAC to make a ruling on a specific cages design.****

Andy, you are wrong. I sent the letter to the a CRB member (he sent the letter to who ever) whom I had talked to in detail at the 2007 Runoffs. I asked just as you viewed the pictures & read in the letter that about three sentences within the rules be cleaned up to eliminate the loop holes. In short for those that don't know, when some people are installing front side hoops/ down tubes in Miatas they are tourching out some metal box members between the cowel & the A pillar among relocating other items. NOT LEGAL correct Andy.................................In Spec Miata, Showroom Stock or Improved Touring.

***Let's say you do go through the correct channels and it's determined those cages are ILLEGAL. Then what? It's still up to the local tech guys to be good at what they do, no?***

Andy, if the three sentences are cleaned up in the rules then the builders/owners do not have any excusses. Eliminating the holes starts with the people who write & control the rules.

Writting this post is about as funny as the sentence I just sent to JAWS (DW) through Fox Sports who stated on the NASCAR race today that his crew change a motor in his NASCAR car in 11 minutes. Easy to figure how he got the name JAWS.

By, Nascar is staring back up after a red flag.

Andy Bettencourt

02-24-2008, 09:15 PM

Well then your note to the CRB member wasn't clear that you wanted to keep it between you guys. It hit the SMAC agenda and got a 'no action required'. You seemed to be complaining to me in your post that we are willing to make a correction to something as miniscule as the melt-sheet letter but not your cage issue.

Neither the ITAC nor the SMAC are responsible for ANYTHING to do with cage rules, so willing or not, it's not part of the charter.

ddewhurst

02-24-2008, 11:10 PM

***It hit the SMAC agenda and got a 'no action required***

Andy, IMHJ the CRB should have made the SMAC aware, the ITAC aware & the SSAC aware & also IMHJ either the CRB or the other commities should have found enough interest to request more action by me the letter write or is that also outside the box.

Andy, per your own words you had/read my complete letter. Is the information I forwarded correct that the practice of tourching the box members between the cowel & the A piller ILLEGAL?

Matt Rowe

02-25-2008, 12:35 AM

Forgive me if this comes across wrong but . . .

Enough already! This miata cage issue has nothing to do with the March FasTrack but it has been brought up repeatedly and seemingly at least half of Dave's responses over the past 6 months seem to make some reference to it. We get it you're not happy either with the "illegal" cages or the way in which your letter has been handled.

But enough is enough. You signature lists a Spec Miata and obviously you feel that the illegal cage issue offers some kind of advantage. Next race you enter protest a car. With essentially no bond to post the protest fee will cost you less than the time you have already spent discussing this at length. Then you have a ruling. If you don't like it, appeal. That will tell you if national feels the modification is really legal. And if at the end of all that it turns out to be then you can either change your car to take advantage of it or lobby to have the rule change.

Notice that none of the above requires you to bring this up here, over and over. As I said we all get it. You think people are building illegal cars. But there is a process to determine that and it doesn't appear that you have been following it.

Arguing about the process by which your letter has been handled makes little sense when there is already a process in place to determine compliance. A process which I don't believe you have followed. Use the system in place and see what the outcome is.

JeffYoung

02-25-2008, 02:19 AM

Plus.....THIS ISN'T THE SPEC MIATA FORUM.

ddewhurst

02-25-2008, 10:28 AM

****Plus.....THIS ISN'T THE SPEC MIATA FORUM.****

Mr. Young, please using the 2008 GCR written rules explain the difference between Improved Topuring, Showroom Stock & Spec Miata roll cage rules. The rules were one in the same before 2008 & they are one in the same today. There are also Miata ITA cars fabricated with roll cages that do not meet the intent of the rules. Same issue different class car.

****Forgive me if this comes across wrong but . . .****

Mr. Rowe, not an issue.

To anyone who has read my ramblings about these questionable roll cages. There are loop holes within the GCR that allow these roll cages that do not meet the intent of the rules. Any of you with an understanding of the rules know exactly which loop hole sentences I'm talking about. Closing the loop hole sentences was the reason I sent the letter to the CRB. Several times a year posts on this site show the need for closing these rule loop hole sentences.

lateapex911

02-25-2008, 02:20 PM

David, to answer your question regarding private communication, it's as easy as reading my sig, where my email is listed, or clicking on my "handle" which will open a dialog box listing several options, one of which is the PM option.

That said, I prefer any communication that involves SCCA or ITAC stuff to be handled either here in this forum, or via mail sent to the ITAC for inclusion in our ITAC forum, and discussion on our con call. if you want to tell me that I'm a jerk, or that I'm a cool guy, do that here as well. I can take a little public humiliation or praise.

Further, your letter was less than clear, and upon rereading it, it requests:
"......Please confirm or deny that the roll cage for a Spec Miata described within this letter is illegal. "
That's clear request for a ruling, and not the CRB's job.
It goes on to say,
"Out of my request for a determination of these type modifications being legal or illegal my solution to eliminating these illegal roll cages is to close the loop holes within the existing written rules."

While your writing is, to me at least, sometimes hard to follow, I think I have distilled the purpose of your letter in the boldened area. (That's not intended as an insult, but more as a signal as to why perhaps, the outcome you desire wasn't achieved)

Your second sentence is the crux of your desire, but honestly, it doesn't give the CRB much to work with.

If you had said, "Here is an example of what I feel is someone taking advantage of an allowance in the cage rules, and it is being commonly done. I feel the rule, currently written as "KJGFLSHFIERUCLHSLHFLSHF", needs to be modified or tightened up by adding the term 'limited' to preclude such liberal interpretations." then maybe the CRB would have had something more substantial to go on.

Or maybe not, because, there needs to be flexibility for situations that can't be addressed by rules that are too confining. And maybe the CRB is counting on the racers and the tech people to do their jobs, protest the questionable cars, and make judgments that can go through the appeals process, becoming case history, at least for that year, but also becoming part of the collective wisdom.

But to come on here, and spew hate at the ITAC (and SMAC and CRB) because they had an item (improper phrasing regarding insulation) brought to their attention, which was rather specific and easy to remedy, and the simple rewording made the job of the competitors and techs easier, while having zero downside, is, in my opinion, rather childish on your part.

Ron Earp

02-25-2008, 02:34 PM

To anyone who has read my ramblings about these questionable roll cages. There are loop holes within the GCR that allow these roll cages that do not meet the intent of the rules. Any of you with an understanding of the rules know exactly which loop hole sentences I'm talking about. Closing the loop hole sentences was the reason I sent the letter to the CRB. Several times a year posts on this site show the need for closing these rule loop hole sentences.

I'll bite and I'm ignorant. Please help me to understand the "loop hole sentences" that you are referring to by specifically listing the phrases in the GCR along with an example of an illegal cage that breaks the rule. As a builder and driver of more than a few SMs I do have a genuine interest. Maybe a new thread entitled "Closing the Roll Cage Loop Holes" would be appropriate.

Butch Kummer

02-25-2008, 03:43 PM

Writting this post is about as funny as the sentence I just sent to JAWS (DW) through Fox Sports who stated on the NASCAR race today that his crew change a motor in his NASCAR car in 11 minutes. Easy to figure how he got the name JAWS.

Mr. Dewhurst,

Totally off topic and I didn't see the broadcast, but what exactly is your objection to DW's statement? Back in the late 70's or early 80's when DW was driving (and winning) for Budweiser, Junior Johnson's crew in fact changed an engine during a Cup race at North Wilkesoboro in less than 11 minutes. Car and Driver had them re-do the feat (with a cold engine to keep from scalding someone) for an article and they completed the task in just over seven minutes. Shortly after that NASCAR outlawed changing engines during a race because of safety concerns.

You may indeed have valid arguments at times, but your lack of historical accuracy and grammatical errors ("writting"?) often tend to cast you in a Berg-ish light.

DavidM

02-25-2008, 03:59 PM

Andy Bettencourt

02-25-2008, 05:24 PM

There were at least 3 cars, the CRX, Integra, and 240SX, that were weighted using numbers higher than 25% during the grand re-weighting. These numbers were based off of what top build cars of those makes were making.

Let's play a game and pretend there weren't any top prep cars of these makes. Only some average builds that people were still tinkering with and none making nearly as much power as a top build. These cars would have been weighted using the normal 25% improvement over stock. So 3-4 years down the road when people have really worked on these cars and they start making the power we now know they can make what happens? Do the cars get re-weighted?

What happens if people find a way to get an extra 10hp out of a Miata? Did the "formula" take into account standalone ECUs?

The ITAC is on a slippery slope by using real-world numbers for some cars, but not for others IMO. You either use the estimated numbers for all cars or you put in place some process to periodically re-evaluate the real-world numbers.

David
David,

Your comments make sense to me and in a perfect world, I would want that. Let's discuss it further...

I am a firm believer that we need to use what we know. Otherwise, certain cars that can make tremendous gains in IT trim will run amuck as overdogs. Cars with no prior knowledge receive the 25%. Some will make more, some will make 25% and some will make less. I think in a system as granular as this one (to say, not that granular) we get dang close to most every car hitting the 'target'. Not the bulls-eye mind you, but certainly the target. Not so long ago, there were cars in the same class that weren't even in the same stratosphere.

Right now, the PCA system is set up to be mostly 'reactive'. It is the mechanism in place to correct classifications that ruin class parity. I think what you are asking for is a proactive approach to the evaluations. Help design it by sending a letter to the CRB. Here are some questions that would be helpful to know your position on:

1. What cars get re-evaluated and when?
2. What sources do you look to for 'evidence'?
3. How much evidence do you need in order to make a change?
4. How small of a change qualifies for an adjustment?
5. If only select cars get re-evaluated, what triggers that evaluation?
6. How do you prove/validate a negative when guys write in and ask for reductions based on their output?

I wonder if what you are asking for is doable within the framework and philosophy of IT.

The way it is now cuts off the highs and the lows but leaves a decent amount of area under the curve. The question is how far down the road toward real competition adjustments do you want to travel in the name of parity?

(On edit: The process does take into account open ECU's as it is actually newer than the 'anything in the stock box' rule)

ddewhurst

02-25-2008, 05:43 PM

Folks, not all of us have equal presentation skills.:024: Hurrah for you perfect people.:D

***often tend to cast you in a Berg-ish light./10 minute engine change***

Butch, ^ not called for. I'll attempt to find facts on the Junior/DW 10 minute engine change.

Ron, following would be the sentences that I refer to as the loop hole sentences.

Also people in the Improved Touring world use two similar ITCS rules (9.1.3.D.9.c. the second sentence & 9.1.3.D.9.f. the third sentemce) to declare open season on whatever gets in their way while implementing a roll cage.

Jake, I spew no hate as you stated. I do in fact understand the rule change request process except I didn't do a good job writting my letter. BUT the fact that several people have viewed my letter tells me that the letter was circulated beyond the CRB member I sent the letter to. The CRB member didn't request further information. You & others know as well as I do that there are loop hole sentences within the GCR. Please see the sentences I mentioned for Ron to review. Had I written a perfect letter with the perfect requests would the roll cage loop hole sentences have been closed.

planet6racing

02-25-2008, 06:03 PM

Folks, not all of us have equal presentation skills.:024: Hurrah for you perfect people.:D
Ron, following would be the sentences that I refer to as the loop hole sentences.

Also people in the Improved Touring world use two similar ITCS rules (9.1.3.D.9.c. the second sentence & 9.1.3.D.9.f. the third sentemce) to declare open season on whatever gets in their way while implementing a roll cage.

Ah well, it's almost 4:15 pm and I have a sharp stick, so I'll poke at this.

Here are the sections I believe Mr. Dewhurst is referring to:

f. Carpets, center consoles, floor mats, headliners, sun roof liner
and frame, dome lights, grab handles, and their insulating,
attaching or operating mechanisms may be removed. Door
interior trim panels may be replaced with 0.060” aluminum
securely attached to the door. All other interior trim panels,
except the dashboard, may be removed. Other than to provide
for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized
modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment
alterations or gutting are permitted.

g. Any removable covers used to cover spare tires, tools, bins,
etc., may be removed along with attaching hardware and
bracketry. Carpets, mats, and their insulating or attaching
materials may be removed from the floor and recesses of the
cargo/ trunk/spare tire area.

Seems pretty simple to me. If you think someone hacked away more than necessary, protest.

on edit - 10 minutes to change an engine? What's taking them so long? I've seen a complete rear half of a car changed in less than 4...

erlrich

02-25-2008, 06:35 PM

You & others know as well as I do that there are loop hole sentences within the GCR. Please see the sentences I mentioned for Ron to review. Had I written a perfect letter with the perfect requests would the roll cage loop hole sentences have been closed. I'm guessing that they wouldn't have been changed - what you call a loophole someone else might refer to as an allowance (in fact, I believe Jake did just that earlier). Are you saying that there should be no allowances for any modifications, other than those specifically spelled out in the rules, to provide for installation of the roll cage?

ddewhurst

02-25-2008, 08:17 PM

Bill, you are 50% correct for item 9.1.3.D.9.c.

Other than to provide
for the installation of required safety equipment or other authorized
modifications, no other driver/passenger compartment
alterations or gutting are permitted.

The other sentence is the fourth sentence of 9.1.3.D.9.c.

The response I have received from the SCCA is that the items I mentioned in my letter are not within the intent of the GCR writen rules meaning they agree the items mentioned are not within the intent of the rules & should not be implemented. The SCA has made no comment if they believe these sentences are the rule loop holes as I suggested. My goal WAS to change the rule to eliminate the existing written loop holes.

Ron, I failed in my previous post. There are metal chassis box members between the cowl & the A pillar that are being tourched out when implementing the down tubes in a ITA & SM Miata cars. One needs to have the dash off to see these box members.

***Are you saying that there should be no allowances for any modifications, other than those specifically spelled out in the rules, to provide for installation of the roll cage?***

Earl, we all who follow this site including you have viewed over the years that there are those who post asking questions with respect to implementing roll cages & many time these people are told that their thoughts are not within the roll cage rule requirements. With the specific item of tourching out the Miata chassis box member between the cowl & the A pillar, no IMHU of the rules one is not allowed to tourch out those box members. There is a rule that says one may butcher the dash/instrument panel for roll cage implementation. Where in the rules do words say that these box members may be removed? I'm sure I could list many items that could be a gain when implementing a roll cage & I'm am also positive these items would not be consistant with the rules.:D

spnkzss

02-26-2008, 09:46 AM

First question, has there been a protest filed if you believe it is wrong?

Second question, is it worth time on the track to do this "illega"l mod?

Third for Andy:
You guys recently revamped the way you set weights and class (which btw seems to be an awesome starting point). My question is when you revamped you "knew" the Honda's/whatevers made more than 25% so you planned accordingly with an "adder", which makes sense, but what happens when the next Daewoo come in, you class it with 25%, it takes 3 years for someone to build, you find it makes 45% more power in IT Trim. What initiates the "reclassing"? How does someone go about asking without basically saying "slow down the Daewoo". ;) How can you do that and still stay in the IT Philosophy that we don't performance adjustments?

Rob - Just likes to know how things work.

jjjanos

02-26-2008, 10:16 AM

Third for Andy:
You guys recently revamped the way you set weights and class (which btw seems to be an awesome starting point). My question is when you revamped you "knew" the Honda's/whatevers made more than 25% so you planned accordingly with an "adder", which makes sense, but what happens when the next Daewoo come in, you class it with 25%, it takes 3 years for someone to build, you find it makes 45% more power in IT Trim. What initiates the "reclassing"? How does someone go about asking without basically saying "slow down the Daewoo". ;) How can you do that and still stay in the IT Philosophy that we don't performance adjustments?

Rob - Just likes to know how things work.

You cannot. It's a performance adjustment, period. Just to be clear on that, it's a performance adjustment. I'll say it another way, it adjusts the performance. Same goes for moving a car from ITA to ITB. Performance adjustment.

Performance adjustment. Performance adjustment. Performance adjustment. Number nine, number nine, number nine.

lateapex911

02-26-2008, 12:15 PM

Of course, if we didn't "performance adjust" there would be no point in racing. A guy in an F1 car shows up, and we all lose. Just the creation of classes is performance adjusting, and assigning weight is as well. Then there's an adjustment post classification based on a mistake during classification. Obviously, one is done pre classification, but the other is done after....and the after is the troublesome one.

The difference between IT and say, Prod, is that IT sets them according to assumed percentage gains for over 95% of the cases, then leaves them alone. Prod has been more of a moving target, based on on track performance.

. I can tell you that there ARE cars like the Daewoo already out there, they've had their weight set and they are exceeding the performance estimate for them.

And they will remain as is.

And then there's the flipside, the "underperformer". We get letters on those as well.

A recent case was a request for a weight break and I honestly thought it had merit, as I knew that car. However, such a change wasn't accounted for in the process (The cars unique engine characteristic doesn't have it's own process breakout) so any change was not going to happen within the guidelines of the process. But we discussed it, and a CRB guy asked a question: "Did he do XX?? " I thought, "That's not legal", and he then went on to shine a light I'd never thought of.

Learning that, it became obvious that the process was better than I had thought, and I'm a big fan of it. No change needed, or granted.

Moral of the story is that the process isn't perfect, but it's pretty darn good, yet there will be winners and losers, as it can't account for everything, but stability is important and exceptions are very rare.

Prod, on the other hand, has historically been a moving target, with adjustments based heavily on on track performance, with one track (the Runoffs track) weighing most heavily.

In answer to your question, that Daewoo would have to be exceptionally out of line for it to garner attention, and then any adjustment gets done by the book.

(I think we all realize that no system is lily white perfect, and that we need to decide where on the gray scale we land, and then be consistent about holding that line. We have selected a light gray, let's say, where Prod's choice is much darker.)

raffaelli

02-26-2008, 12:46 PM

Thank you members of the ITAC for standing up, donating your time and stress in participating in both the logical discussions and the non-logical banter. Kudos.
:smilie_pokal:

JoshS

02-26-2008, 02:15 PM

Thank you members of the ITAC for standing up, donating your time and stress in participating in both the logical discussions and the non-logical banter. Kudos.
:smilie_pokal:

BTW, the rules DO provide for a mechanism to adjust cars. We try very hard not to use it. But Quoting 9.1.3.C from the ITCS:

"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.

On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle’s class."

Bill Miller

02-26-2008, 09:10 PM

Bill M.,

You and I have become unproductive in debate so I have decided to not answer your questions/provocations at least for the forseable future for the benfit of both of our sanity and IT.com's benefit.

Andy,

I guess that's a little better than being put on 'ignore'. And the other ITAC members don't post here because of me? I had no idea I had such power.

BTW, I'm not sure why you edited it out???

Greg Amy

02-26-2008, 09:52 PM

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.
Which, of course, has always made me wonder what would happen if someone was patient/smart enough/sand-bagged enough to wait four years to develop a potential class-killer...

But, hey, that's just me...

spnkzss

02-26-2008, 09:53 PM

Andy Bettencourt

02-26-2008, 10:04 PM

Which, of course, has always made me wonder what would happen if someone was patient/smart enough/sand-bagged enough to wait four years to develop a potential class-killer...

But, hey, that's just me...

On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle’s class

It's in there...

Greg Amy

02-27-2008, 08:23 AM

It's in there...
Yeah, well, the problem is with generating the political will to do it.

Consider the scenario: someone (say, me) builds a car they believe is a winner. Say, further, the car is newly-classified (e.g., Protege). I decide to build it slowly, never dominating, and bide my time for four years. During those four years it appears as a very good quality build. Typically places well, too, winning once in a while, but never by a mile, and usually runs locally so never high visibility. Lots of attention, but nothing outstanding.

Four years in, weight gets "set", and suddenly the car starts winning consistently. The first year gets everyone's attention, but hey, what do you expect? Second year mimics the first: rarely loses except for the rare "break". People start muttering, but nothing really moves on it. Competitors are sending in requests for reclassification, but ITAC/CRB return "correct as classified."

Third year, same thing. More muttering, more letters, more attention, CRB/ITAC start paying attention. Fourth year car gets sold, everybody relaxes, but the new owner continues the string of successes.

Are we there yet? Do we have an objective process of "percentage wins" or "number of track records" or "number of cars beaten" before the ITAC/CRB are willing to use the political capital to reclassify/reweigh the car?

In other words, in theory "the process" is a nice idea, but in reality it's highly unlikely to get applied, certainly not within a reasonable time frame. The A#1 problem with a system not based purely on a formula of physical characteristics is that there are humans involved, and whereas in some cases humans act quickly and decisively, other cases it's hard to get the ship to turn. Subjective opinion is, by definition, dependent on the whims and opinions of those making it... - GA

dickita15

02-27-2008, 08:35 AM

By my read the “On Rare Occasion” clause is not tied to any time limit, but as Greg points out it would take tremendous political will to implement, as well it should. I think we will all know when it happens. It is the type of situation that we had with the BMW in ITS and to a lesser extent the CRX in ITA. These events led to a situation where there was a political will to do something even more politically bold than invoking the Rare Occasion clause and that is the invention of a process for classing IT cars.
I am comfortable that the community will recognize a Rare Occasion type overdog although we will have ugly arguments when and if it happens.
In my mind the “mistakes” that will be missed are the cars that where classed too slow. If the process fails them in that direction it never gets fixed.

spnkzss

02-27-2008, 09:25 AM

JeffYoung

02-27-2008, 09:54 AM

I agree with Dick, and would argue (to Greg) that the BMW in ITS fits his example perfectly. Car is classed at (what I believe) was an inappropriate weight. First builds do well, but are not overgods (not a typo, I like that new term). As a few years go buy, pro shops get involved and the BMW starts to win more races. Finally, it is apparent to all that the car is an overgod, and something is done about it.

The process can work. It's not always clean -- and the BMW is another example of that, as I think the SIR situation was messy and effectively ran all E36s out of ITS -- but it works.

JLawton

02-27-2008, 10:50 AM

There are just WAY too many variables to be able to say, "X formula is going to be on the nose and create an even playing field every time".

Not only is there a big "un-known" factor when classing a new car, but what about it's performance after? How do you know the car has been built to the limits of the rules when people say the Daewoo is too slow?? Or how do we know that the Daewoo builder isn't a cheater and THAT'S why he's winning. Yes there is going to be inconsistances, but that's mostly due to previous classing. Just because a car was classed incorrectly in the past doesn't mean a new car with similar charactoristics should get classed incorrectley as well.

Unless you can pull apart a known 10/10ths car and dyno it, you'll never know for sure.

And I think the key fact to remember: The process is way better than before!!!

Stay the course.

lateapex911

02-27-2008, 10:54 AM

What if I turn the Daewoo example around. You class it with a 25% increase. Lets say the Daewoo only can make 7% more in IT trim (you know because Daewoo is that efficient :)). How long goes by until you don't give it a performance adjustment?

Maybe I'm not giving the ITAC enough credit. Maybe the the whole concept of the Daewoo getting classed without some true knowledge of the car at hand won't happen. If someone is interested in getting it classed there has to be some knowledge about the car somewhere. The more I think about it, I guess the whole "Car must be 5 years or older" is the clause that catches that. Within 5 years someone "should" know "something".

That is an issue, and it's a downside of the desire for stability. Many feel that stability is a high priority, (based on reading folks opinions here, private emails I've gotten, and requested input from the members when we proposed "the process") and the constant dorking of the weights and rules, (such as Prod) is to be avoided, even if there are certain casualties.

Even with the 5 yr rule, it is very possible that such a situation could exist, and it is very hard to prove a negative. I can think of cars that haven't been treated by the process particularly well, (i own one, LOL), but I also keep in mind the bigger picture, and feel we've got a better situation than nearly any other.

But...it aint pefect!

jjjanos

02-27-2008, 11:24 AM

The case of the underdog Daewoo.

It probably won't get any weight adjustment.

If you are a top-notch builder, you won't touch it because

Tthere probably aren't any suspension bits for it and you don't want to pay for custom stuff.
You are going to be aware that the car, as classed is NFG and you won't touch it.That means that the car will be built by either a so-so builder or a complete newbie who when he asks for the car to be reclassified will be told no and the unstated reasons will be

He's a newbie, ergo, more track time will improve his lap times.
We're only seeing one of these cars and the think there is more weight to be lost.
This guy isn't one of the fraternity, so he doesn't know what he's talking about and the car clearly isn't developed as far as it could be.
Being competitive is promised. Having a place to race is.
There simple aren't that many people impacted, i.e. when there is an overdog, the rest of the class is up in arms and that puts political pressure on the ITAC to make a change.Bottom line, IMO, if onle one or two are built, it will be viewed as an unrepresentative sample of the cars capabilities and no adjustments will be made because of that.

The ITAC does their best and tries to rate an unknown car as best it can. Sometimes they nail it. Sometimes they underclassify. Sometimes they overclassify. Regardless of what they do, someone will be peeved at them.

stevel

02-27-2008, 11:53 AM

Yeah, well, the problem is with generating the political will to do it.

Consider the scenario: someone (say, me) builds a car they believe is a winner. Say, further, the car is newly-classified (e.g., Protege). I decide to build it slowly, never dominating, and bide my time for four years. During those four years it appears as a very good quality build. Typically places well, too, winning once in a while, but never by a mile, and usually runs locally so never high visibility. Lots of attention, but nothing outstanding.

Four years in, weight gets "set", and suddenly the car starts winning consistently. The first year gets everyone's attention, but hey, what do you expect? Second year mimics the first: rarely loses except for the rare "break". People start muttering, but nothing really moves on it. Competitors are sending in requests for reclassification, but ITAC/CRB return "correct as classified."

Third year, same thing. More muttering, more letters, more attention, CRB/ITAC start paying attention. Fourth year car gets sold, everybody relaxes, but the new owner continues the string of successes.

Are we there yet? Do we have an objective process of "percentage wins" or "number of track records" or "number of cars beaten" before the ITAC/CRB are willing to use the political capital to reclassify/reweigh the car?

In other words, in theory "the process" is a nice idea, but in reality it's highly unlikely to get applied, certainly not within a reasonable time frame. The A#1 problem with a system not based purely on a formula of physical characteristics is that there are humans involved, and whereas in some cases humans act quickly and decisively, other cases it's hard to get the ship to turn. Subjective opinion is, by definition, dependent on the whims and opinions of those making it... - GA
Greg, the big problem I see with your example is that it's just ONE car. How could a PCA be justified for just one car?

I would think to justify a PCA there would be a need for several examples of this car built that is having similar results. I think it's too much of a knee jerk reaction to make the change based on one example.

Question, if YOU build/have said car that has too low a weight for its potential, do you write in for a request to review this car's potential again?

s

Knestis

02-27-2008, 12:55 PM

I need to go on record, as a newbie member of the ITAC, that I am personally struggling with the underlying questions here. We ARE having conversations in that group about these issues, so please don't presume that there's blind adherence to any preconceived notion about classing/spec'ing cars.

K

DavidM

02-27-2008, 07:01 PM

David,

Your comments make sense to me and in a perfect world, I would want that. Let's discuss it further...

I am a firm believer that we need to use what we know. Otherwise, certain cars that can make tremendous gains in IT trim will run amuck as overdogs. Cars with no prior knowledge receive the 25%. Some will make more, some will make 25% and some will make less. I think in a system as granular as this one (to say, not that granular) we get dang close to most every car hitting the 'target'. Not the bulls-eye mind you, but certainly the target. Not so long ago, there were cars in the same class that weren't even in the same stratosphere.

Right now, the PCA system is set up to be mostly 'reactive'. It is the mechanism in place to correct classifications that ruin class parity. I think what you are asking for is a proactive approach to the evaluations. Help design it by sending a letter to the CRB. Here are some questions that would be helpful to know your position on:

1. What cars get re-evaluated and when?
2. What sources do you look to for 'evidence'?
3. How much evidence do you need in order to make a change?
4. How small of a change qualifies for an adjustment?
5. If only select cars get re-evaluated, what triggers that evaluation?
6. How do you prove/validate a negative when guys write in and ask for reductions based on their output?

Fair questions. And tough ones as we all know. I think many of them have been discussed in one form or another on this forum at length. I'll see if I can find the time to contemplate them in more detail and write something up. If nothing else, I think your questions illustrate why I think using real world numbers is a tricky proposition and having some form of proactive evaluation process would be good.

I would ask how was it determined that the cars I mentioned previously, the CRX, Integra, and 240SX, needed to have their weight adjusted? I'm not talking from their previous, before-process weight, but from the standard process weight. It would seem that most of the questions you asked above would have had to have been answered in some fashion in order for their weights to be adjusted using something other than the 25% standard.

David

dickita15

02-27-2008, 08:42 PM

One thing I should point out, while the Daewoo example is valid and the car would likely not get adjusted, but the harm would be to those that tried to race the Daewoo while with the overdog (okay overgod) example the whole class is suffering.

Andy Bettencourt

02-27-2008, 09:00 PM

Fair questions. And tough ones as we all know. I think many of them have been discussed in one form or another on this forum at length. I'll see if I can find the time to contemplate them in more detail and write something up. If nothing else, I think your questions illustrate why I think using real world numbers is a tricky proposition and having some form of proactive evaluation process would be good.

I would ask how was it determined that the cars I mentioned previously, the CRX, Integra, and 240SX, needed to have their weight adjusted? I'm not talking from their previous, before-process weight, but from the standard process weight. It would seem that most of the questions you asked above would have had to have been answered in some fashion in order for their weights to be adjusted using something other than the 25% standard.

David

I think we can agree the questions are tricky. I believe most people don't consider how in depth the thought process has to be in order to implement strategic thinking like your idea. At some point, it is too complex given the expectations of competitiveness we have in IT.

We applied the process in broad fashion to every car in IT over the winter of 05. We also applied what we knew to the cars we knew it. There were cars that lost weight and cars that gained weight. They didn't gain weight based on their 'dominance' on-track, but since I believe the process to be fairly accurate, it wasn't a coincidence that the 'cars to have' were light by over 100lbs and the cars that were also-rans were heavy by over 100lbs. ANY car that was outside that 100lbs had it's weight reset - up or down. Interesting, the 12A RX-7 gains over 50% in IT trim...it was applied as such and it STILL lost weight. It wasn't about slowing cars or speeding cars up, it was about getting as many legacy cars as we could through the same system we were using to class new cars per member requests - so we could go forward signing the same song.

I understand people are cautious about the ITAC using 'what they know' when classing - but I am a firm believer in these things:

- There is no way we can re-evaluate cars every few years - the data just isn't out there - and the questions I posed to you were meant to illustrate how hard that would be
- It isn't perfect, but it is a heck of a lot better than using a standard amount for everyone. Each class would have it's HUGE overdog
- We DO have a method to re-evaluate and correct a car that is horribly misclassed and is ruining class equity. There just has to be the data to make a move. We haven't had a car yet that we have had to invoke a PCA on 'post-process'. I don't see any right now on the horizon either. Each class seems to have a multitude of choices that can be WINNERS any given weekend.

I can't say this enough - it's an imperfect process in which we try and get better and better with - but it will never be as 'good' as some people want...and that is a good thing IMHO - because THAT is year to year comp adjustments based on on-track performance and that AIN'T GOOD in my eyes.