Need help understanding VW classifications

[BlueStreak]

Since my attempted threadjack elsewhere fell on deaf ears, I would like to know if anyone can help me understand the following:

Why are the following cars which will gain power from the ECU allowance classed at a lower weight per HP than similar cars that will NOT gain power from the ECU allowance?

The Golf IV is: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf III is: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf II is: 21.7 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf I is: 23.1 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight

Doesn't the above seem bass ackwards?

If all of these cars were classed using the same process, how did the older/lower tech/fixed engine management cars end up with worse weight/hp numbers than the newer cross flow headed/ ECU enhanced cars?

Assuming CIS single side headed cars could make the same power as the later cars, is there a logical reason why, at a minimum, all of these cars are not spec'd at the same 23.1 lbs/hp?

Shouldn't the cars that can take advantage of the open ECU be xx percent heavier per stock hp than carb and CIS cars that can't?

The better I can understand the process, the fewer letters I'll have to write:D!

[Scirocco#28]

There's no way you'll get a Mk4 down to 2350 so its a moot point anyway.

[shwah]

I'll say the same thing here then.

I do think something doesn't fit in the classifications. However I also think you will see more gains on the Rabbit than you realize. Dump the toilet bowl exhaust manifold for a Techtonics header. Bump the compression to 9:1 (it is probably around 8ish now, despite a claimed 8.5), go to a dyno and get the fueling right.

Why will you see more gains?
.5 is a higher % increase in compression ratio, and increasing compression ratio has diminishing returns as the starting point gets higher. You will get more gain here than the other cars.

The exhaust manifold on your car was also on the early Golfs. Simply changing to a dual outlet gains 5hp. This means you may see up to an additional 5hp from a header than a Golf with dual outlet (that's more than 5% of stock right there).

Electronic fuel injection does not make extra hp magically appear. The newer two cars have a cleaner airflow path at the MAF, but with stock throttle bodies, intake manifolds and valves is that even a restriction? (I really don't know this). If you take steps to adjust the fueling of your CIS for optimum power on a dyno - this will make more improvement than almost anything else. More than once I have seen 15-20hp gains at high rpm points simply by fixing the factory lean setup (although this was on CIS-E cars - same pricipals apply, just a differnt method to adjust fuel).

If I can put together a 25% gain on my motor, I do expect that you could extract a 30% gain out of yours - however it is one thing to do the math on a keyboard, and another to acheive it, maybe I am off base.

I hope to have a better idea of what a well built A1 1.8 can do in the next month or so.

[BlueStreak]

Chris,

Comp is 8.9:1, Techtonics header, the cylinder head was prepped to the edge of IT rules (by Techtonics (they used to offer that service)), the cam is on the strong side of the mfr spec'd tolerances. Multiple exhaust approaches were dyno'd before the current one was settled on.

The engine is a top tier IT build, which adds to the frustration of seeing the later cars run away.

[Knestis]

If you'd send me dyno sheets with air/fuel data, it's more information for the ITAC to put into the mix as we try to grow our understanding of how the pieces all fit together.

K

[Beran]

I think you over estimate what the open ECU wil do.... Most of us have already reprogrammed chips and have been running them... So 95% of the gain that is avaible has already been taken advantage of.
The restriction for the newer cars is air flow related and not fuel. An open ECU will not gain you more air flow just better control of the amount of fuel added to optimize burn.... which you can already do with a re-programmed chip.
But getting an extra 5% is what some people will do.

Just my humble opinion - I am also not an expert at engine managment.

B

[BlueStreak]

If you'd send me dyno sheets with air/fuel data, it's more information for the ITAC to put into the mix as we try to grow our understanding of how the pieces all fit together.

K

I've lost them, but I will be going back for some tuning with a wideband, and once I've got a new sheet, I'll get it to you.

BTW - Thank you for your work in this matter.

[BlueStreak]

I think you over estimate what the open ECU wil do.... Most of us have already reprogrammed chips and have been running them... So 95% of the gain that is avaible has already been taken advantage of.
The restriction for the newer cars is air flow related and not fuel. An open ECU will not gain you more air flow just better control of the amount of fuel added to optimize burn.... which you can already do with a re-programmed chip.
But getting an extra 5% is what some people will do.

Just my humble opinion - I am also not an expert at engine managment.

B

OK, so let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the net advantage for a cross flow head is zero. Let's also assume that the net advantage of ECU tuning vs. CIS tuning is zero. Should the starting point be this out of whack?

The Golf IV is: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf III is: 20.4 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf II is: 21.7 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight
The Golf I is: 23.1 lbs/hp in STOCK form at spec weight

To use your Golf III as a reference, your starting out with a 13% better power to weight ratio than the Golf I. Now I realize that my 25 year old Golf I has superior handling, superior braking, stiffer chassis, better aero, better head flow, and better injection, but do you need that much of a head start on the power:p?

[Knestis]

It's part of the academic conversation rather than an excuse or rationale for how things are, but remember that additional mass has to be accelerated laterally, too.

What you need to do, Eddie is distill your bigger question down to a specific request to the Comp Board, re: the MkI GTI. I'd recommend it be in terms of re-examining the assumptions and calculations used to define its race weight, or something along those lines. On-track performance is immaterial so you can streamline your case.

The ITAC can't simply "un-whack things." :)

K

[BlueStreak]

It's part of the academic conversation rather than an excuse or rationale for how things are, but remember that additional mass has to be accelerated laterally, too.

What you need to do, Eddie is distill your bigger question down to a specific request to the Comp Board, re: the MkI GTI. I'd recommend it be in terms of re-examining the assumptions and calculations used to define its race weight, or something along those lines. On-track performance is immaterial so you can streamline your case.

The ITAC can't simply "un-whack things." :)

K

Therein lies my problem. The car makes weight, when stone cold empty of fuel (and fuel starving in the corners- I need to address that ), but as a 240lb driver, it takes a LOT of effort to do it. I'd ask for a weight break for the MKI, but I couldn't use it, so no point in trying to make that happen.

The other option is to ask that weight be added to the later cars, and I really don't won't to screw my VW brethren who are having a tough enough time with some of the other makes they are facing.

My pursuit here has not been so much to "un-whack things" as it has been to illustrate how important it is that any new ITAC philosophies must be applied equally. I simply want to know what the ITAC was thinking when they went to the effort to lighten the MKI, but not enough to keep it on par with the MKIII and MKIV.

[JimW337]

How about moving the Rabbit to ''C'? Haven't I asked this before? Is it worth a letter?

JimW
Greensboro, NC

[shwah]

Eddie,

If you were allowed, you can get more weight out of the car.

I could run my Golf 2 at 2180 with about 5 minutes of effort.

I could run it at 2130 with about an hour of effort.

If I needed to, I think I could get it down to 2080 within a few weeks.

Granted I happen to be that 180lb driver they wrote the rules for, but the point is the weight is there to come out of these cars. For reference, the stock curb weight is 2350ish for the Golf 2, add the driver in and that is 2530.

This is why I am not convinced that the Golf 4 cannot make weight. Stock curb weight is 2750ish. You need to get 580 out to hit weight. Tall order, but there is a lot more insulation, sound deadening, heavier window regulators, heavier windows, heavier door panels, heavier stereo system, full size spare tire, air bags, larger cooling fan, standard AC, yadda yadda yadda. It would take an all out - strip the undercoating - type effort, so there won't be many that get there, but I would rather shoot for that in B than ballast up for C myself.

[Campbell]

Boy I am kind of diggin this thread.. keep in mind whatever goes for the MK1 GTI also goes for the MK1 Scirocco!!

[BlueStreak]

How about moving the Rabbit to ''C'? Haven't I asked this before? Is it worth a letter?

JimW
Greensboro, NC

At its current weight, the car is an overdog in C.

Here I go advocating dual classifications again...:rolleyes:

[BlueStreak]

Eddie,

If you were allowed, you can get more weight out of the car.



I actually know a MKI driver who had his car re-caged last year to get the car to 2080. It's that hard to get the car to 2080 with a 240lb driver.

To get the car down to the 20.4lbs/stock HP that the MKIII and MKIV enjoy, the spec would be 1836.

To get the car down to the 21.7lbs/stock HP the the MKII is at, the spec would be 1953.

I don't see getting to either of those without resorting to removing the washer bottle:D

[Knestis]

Because we do the weight/power math based on post-IT-improvement power, the differences between generations of "theoretical" VWs are smaller than the values you illustrate, Eddie.

Policies and practices don't really allow you to ask for less weight on the MkI or more weight on the MkII. You can ask that we "run it through the process," but that's about it. Problem is, the "can it reach minimum weight?" part of the process kind of presumes that "average" size driver, which you already recognize is problematic.

We've had some spirited conversations (in the ITAC and more broadly) regarding philosophies about minimum weights but general practice seems to be to disregard how HARD it is to get to minimum weight, if it looks like it's doable. Some cars struggle to get to their process weight, some are right on without ballast, and some have to add weight. We get complaints from two of these three groups but as long as we have to hit the class guidelines we've got, this is how it will be.

>> At its current weight, the car is an overdog in C.

FWIW, the difference between an ITB MkI Golf and a theoretical ITC version of the same thing - with all pertinent assumptions being equal - is about 200#. Remember that if someone requests a review and their Borgward or whatever lands in a lower class, it's unlikely that it will be at the same weight as it ran the higher class.

K

[gran racing]

There's no way you'll get a Mk4 down to 2350 so its a moot point anyway.

It's not a moot point or at least it certainly wasn't when discussing how the MR2 can't get down to the spec'd minimum weight.

[BlueStreak]

Because we do the weight/power math based on post-IT-improvement power, the differences between generations of "theoretical" VWs are smaller than the values you illustrate, Eddie.

Policies and practices don't really allow you to ask for less weight on the MkI or more weight on the MkII. You can ask that we "run it through the process," but that's about it. Problem is, the "can it reach minimum weight?" part of the process kind of presumes that "average" size driver, which you already recognize is problematic.

We've had some spirited conversations (in the ITAC and more broadly) regarding philosophies about minimum weights but general practice seems to be to disregard how HARD it is to get to minimum weight, if it looks like it's doable. Some cars struggle to get to their process weight, some are right on without ballast, and some have to add weight. We get complaints from two of these three groups but as long as we have to hit the class guidelines we've got, this is how it will be.

>> At its current weight, the car is an overdog in C.

FWIW, the difference between an ITB MkI Golf and a theoretical ITC version of the same thing - with all pertinent assumptions being equal - is about 200#. Remember that if someone requests a review and their Borgward or whatever lands in a lower class, it's unlikely that it will be at the same weight as it ran the higher class.

K

So here's the letter I'm thinking about writing:

Please run all vehicles classed in IT through "the process". Because of the volume of work involved, I would suggest setting a completion date of Jan. 1, 2010.


All in favor?

[Bill Miller]

So here's the letter I'm thinking about writing:

Please run all vehicles classed in IT through "the process". Because of the volume of work involved, I would suggest setting a completion date of Jan. 1, 2010.


All in favor?

Problem is, that was supposed to have been done 2-3 years ago. It's what's been referred to as "the great realignment". It's when some cars were moved and others had their weights adjusted. IIRC, anything that was w/in 100# of it's new 'process weight' was left unchanged. But, as Chris (chois) has pointed out, you've created the situation where you've now got a 200# 'envelope', centered around the 'true' process weight. In other words, you've got cars that can be 100# heavy, and others than can be 100# light.

As far as writing the letter, why not? Others have done it. In light of the recent Protege classification, I don't know how a car w/ the same physical characteristics as a Rabbit GTI could be considered anything but a poster child ITC car.


Because we do the weight/power math based on post-IT-improvement power, the differences between generations of "theoretical" VWs are smaller than the values you illustrate, Eddie.

Yes Kirk, but it doesn't matter if you use stock power or "IT power", you still have real differences (see my earlier analysis).




We've had some spirited conversations (in the ITAC and more broadly) regarding philosophies about minimum weights but general practice seems to be to disregard how HARD it is to get to minimum weight, if it looks like it's doable. Some cars struggle to get to their process weight, some are right on without ballast, and some have to add weight. We get complaints from two of these three groups but as long as we have to hit the class guidelines we've got, this is how it will be.

That's funny Kirk, from the thread about the Protege, that was put out as one of the main reasons why it went to C and not B, because it was felt that it couldn't make weight. That's probably the largest subjective factor in the whole thing. Without actually building a car, just how much can you get out of one. You couldn't get it out of the New Beetle, but you can get it out of the Mk IV Golf (when they have curb weights that are ~60# apart). You can get 700#+ out of one (Mk IV Golf), but can't get <400# out of another (Protege).



>> At its current weight, the car is an overdog in C.

FWIW, the difference between an ITB MkI Golf and a theoretical ITC version of the same thing - with all pertinent assumptions being equal - is about 200#. Remember that if someone requests a review and their Borgward or whatever lands in a lower class, it's unlikely that it will be at the same weight as it ran the higher class.

K

Except that's what happened w/ the Mk III Golf, and it then became the new standard.

Couple of interesting things about the VWs, which I'm not sure exist anywhere else in IT.

1) You have 4 generations of one car running in the same class.
2) You have 2 models that are built on the same chassis, w/ the same engine/driveline running in different classes.

Any other cars like this in IT?

[BlueStreak]

Problem is, that was supposed to have been done 2-3 years ago. It's what's been referred to as "the great realignment". It's when some cars were moved and others had their weights adjusted. IIRC, anything that was w/in 100# of it's new 'process weight' was left unchanged. But, as Chris (chois) has pointed out, you've created the situation where you've now got a 200# 'envelope', centered around the 'true' process weight. In other words, you've got cars that can be 100# heavy, and others than can be 100# light.

:blink:You're kidding, right? You mean time and energy was taken to lay all these cars out in one process, but if a car was "close enough", it was left alone? Anyone in the know on this rationale, please respond. At first glance I find this disturbing.

If we have a "process", and we intend to use it, I don't for the life of me understand why it's not applied across the board. It would seem to me that even if the "process" only suggested a 10lb weight change, we make the 10lb weight change. Why wouldn't you? What am I missing?

Either we trust the "process" or we don't - which is it?

It's a rulebook, not a marriage, you're not stuck with it forever. Trust the "process" and see what happens. If, after a season, the letters start rolling in that we have ruined IT, change the rules back and wait for the next great suggestion.

[Knestis]

There's a lot of history here, Eddie and I'm going to be the very LAST in line to defend every decision that's been made since 1983. I wasn't on the ITAC during the Great Realignment but there are a couple of good reasons that the process wasn't applied to every car in the ITCS:

** Simply to save volunteer time, cars that were rarely raced were left alone - the assumption was that if anyone cared enough, they would request that these be revisited but that it didn't make sense to do it proactively. We have since had a couple of requests like this (e.g., most recently Pintos). You can - and SHOULD, I think - do the same.

** We have to recognize that there's such a thing as "close enough." It's frankly WAY optimistic to believe that we are within 10 pounds. I personally think that the wobbliness of most club racing drivers' abilities - even over the course of one on-track session - accounts for more variance in lap times than would even as much as 100# on something like a Golf. I'm SURE that levels of preparation account for way more than that. I grant that it would be symbolically valuable if we could be sure that the make/model of car was accounted for in a way that took it completely out of the picture as a variable in the equation that adds up to "competitiveness," but it's not realistic in the real world.

** People don't like change. If we did a stem-to-stern realignment, some drivers would be thrilled to get less weight while others would be unhappy because the same process netted them a heavier car. It's problematic for an organization like SCCA to change anything because members see the organization as set up to serve them - often individually.

** If one thinks about it, it's not surprising that the ITAC (and other committees), since they are made up of a cross section of member, vary as much as the entire membership in terms of how they think about things, their priorities, beliefs, experiences, etc. There are a couple of opportunities in the process for injecting "judgment" and not everyone does that the same way.(1) I personally think that repeatability and clarity trump the application of subjectivity but you need to recognize something that's very important - the ITAC members who support that aspect of the process do it because they think it gets the cars closer together in terms of competitiveness. There are plenty of examples in the ITCS where if the process were applied like a formula, member perceptions of inequity would go WAY up.

It would be a simple thing to have everything one way if instead of the ITAC and CRB, we had "Kirk." Screw you all, here's how it's going to be, so it's consistent and fair in my eyes.

:)

I could bust my butt to use the process down to three decimal places and people would still be able to find fault if it didn't go their way.

Use the system to make incremental adjustments and we'll try our very best to be consistent. We've just initiated a process to record new classifications so we have a trail of crumbs back to our assumptions. Request that your car be re-examined and we'll see what happens.

K

EDIT (1) - Bill cited one - the "can it get there?" question. The other is the "IT power multiplier." In an effort to be more "fair," a different multiplier (other than the standard 1.25 factor) has been used. In some rare cases, "known IT power" has been used, where the ITAC thought that a sufficient body of evidence was available. Again, I'm not a fan of some of these practices but (again) again, it's a committee of racers who have different ways of doing what they believe to be the right thing.

[BlueStreak]

K - first off, thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions in such detail - this is the kind of feedback that provides the sport a service, and I thank all of you for both your feedback and service to the sport.


There's a lot of history here, Eddie and I'm going to be the very LAST in line to defend every decision that's been made since 1983. I wasn't on the ITAC during the Great Realignment but there are a couple of good reasons that the process wasn't applied to every car in the ITCS:

** Simply to save volunteer time, cars that were rarely raced were left alone - the assumption was that if anyone cared enough, they would request that these be revisited but that it didn't make sense to do it proactively. We have since had a couple of requests like this (e.g., most recently Pintos). You can - and SHOULD, I think - do the same.

Makes perfect sense, I just figured given a long enough time line, all cars could get the treatment.





** We have to recognize that there's such a thing as "close enough." It's frankly WAY optimistic to believe that we are within 10 pounds. I personally think that the wobbliness of most club racing drivers' abilities - even over the course of one on-track session - accounts for more variance in lap times than would even as much as 100# on something like a Golf. I'm SURE that levels of preparation account for way more than that. I grant that it would be symbolically valuable if we could be sure that the make/model of car was accounted for in a way that took it completely out of the picture as a variable in the equation that adds up to "competitiveness," but it's not realistic in the real world.

Agreed, but personally, I highly value the "symbolic value".





** People don't like change. If we did a stem-to-stern realignment, some drivers would be thrilled to get less weight while others would be unhappy because the same process netted them a heavier car. It's problematic for an organization like SCCA to change anything because members see the organization as set up to serve them - often individually.

Personally, I don't care if we upset those who see the organization as something that should serve them individually. These are the kind of people whom I want to see pack up their marbles and find another playground.




** If one thinks about it, it's not surprising that the ITAC (and other committees), since they are made up of a cross section of member, vary as much as the entire membership in terms of how they think about things, their priorities, beliefs, experiences, etc. There are a couple of opportunities in the process for injecting "judgment" and not everyone does that the same way.(1) I personally think that repeatability and clarity trump the application of subjectivity but you need to recognize something that's very important - the ITAC members who support that aspect of the process do it because they think it gets the cars closer together in terms of competitiveness. There are plenty of examples in the ITCS where if the process were applied like a formula, member perceptions of inequity would go WAY up.

Agreed, and given the info that has been available in the past, the job that the ITAC has done thus far, and I mean since the beginning, is extraordinarily admirable. I just *think*, perhaps in error, that with today's technology, we ought to be able to model a cars performance potential to a higher degree of accuracy. This isn't about whether the ITAC is doing a good job, they are, and I truly appreciate that. This is about how can we make it better going forward from today, which, fortunately, seems to be the attitude you have.




It would be a simple thing to have everything one way if instead of the ITAC and CRB, we had "Kirk." Screw you all, here's how it's going to be, so it's consistent and fair in my eyes.

:)

I could bust my butt to use the process down to three decimal places and people would still be able to find fault if it didn't go their way.

Use the system to make incremental adjustments and we'll try our very best to be consistent. We've just initiated a process to record new classifications so we have a trail of crumbs back to our assumptions. Request that your car be re-examined and we'll see what happens.

For reasons mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm not sure which car is the right car to write the request for.

Edit: and to help decide, which of the VW platforms have already been through "the process"?

[Knestis]

I informally asked, before I joined the ITAC but after our ARRC success, for Andy to informally check the MkIII against the process and he indicated that it's correct. About the time I transitioned onto the ITAC, Dave Gran's request to re-examine the same car received the same result. It's safe to say that it's therefore "been through the process."

I don't think that the MkII was adjusted. I THINK that the MkI has been lightened in recent memory but don't remember when or how much. Some digging through Fastracks would answer that.

K

[Bill Miller]

I informally asked, before I joined the ITAC but after our ARRC success, for Andy to informally check the MkIII against the process and he indicated that it's correct. About the time I transitioned onto the ITAC, Dave Gran's request to re-examine the same car received the same result. It's safe to say that it's therefore "been through the process."

I don't think that the MkII was adjusted. I THINK that the MkI has been lightened in recent memory but don't remember when or how much. Some digging through Fastracks would answer that.

K

Kirk,

The Mk I lost 100# as part of 'the great realignment'.

I just want to make a comment about something. We've heard several times that "anything w/in 100# of spec weight wasn't adjusted". The other comments about using percentage instead of actual weight made me noodle on this some more. +/- 100# on a car that weighs 2500# - 3000# and makes 175-200 hp is a whole different situation than +/- 100# on a car that weighs 2000# and makes 100 - 120 hp. That being said, I think that you can't just say "anything w/in 100# is good enough". There's more to it than that.

[gran racing]

Bill, that's exactly what I said in the other Golf thread. :)

[lateapex911]

Kirk,

We've heard several times that "anything w/in 100# of spec weight wasn't adjusted".

Can you quote those quotes? i'd like to see who and what context...

[Bill Miller]

Can you quote those quotes? i'd like to see who and what context...

Jake,

Do you dispute that this is what we've heard? I'll be happy to dig back through the threads.

[Knestis]

Jake,

Do you dispute that this is what we've heard? I'll be happy to dig back through the threads.

I don't think that's the case either but I'm the new guy.

K

[ddewhurst]

Make it simple, ask Andy............. Or to protect myself should I say IIRC :017: Andy made the questioned process weight statement.

[MMiskoe]

I'll say it again - why not just publish the details on how each car got through the process? At least for cars that are new or are having weight/class changes made to them?

Seems there has been a lot of traffic on this board this spring alone that revolves around how a car arrived at its weight. Why should the means by which a weight was assigned be such a top secret thing? Perhaps that is the first question.

Matt

[Knestis]

I support that approach in principle, Matt.

K

EDIT - let's make sure everyone knows this is Kirk's view, not an ITAC position. Opinions may differ and reasonable people may have reasonable reasons for thinking this would be problematic. For example, I can see how it could bog the ITAC down responding to specific detail requests for adjustments re: adders for brakes and so forth. I don't believe that it's good for the category to get sucked into any more model-specific tweaks in attempts to get within the nth degree on weight specifications.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Unless I am not understanding what is being disputed, I have said a million times that anything inside of 100lbs of it's process weight wasn't adjusted during the 'correction' of Feb 06.

It does however create this theoretical 'range' of 200lbs - but I can tell you honestly that there is not one car that I know of off the top of my head that is 'light' by less than 100lbs...and anything under and over got corrected. Almost 30 cars got changed actually.

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/06-2-fastrack-addendum.pdf

[Andy Bettencourt]

And Iwill dispute that the process is some secret thing. It has been gone over here time and time again. Publishing something that is partially subjective opens up topics for endless debate - of which will change nothing.

In other words, its very hard to put in writing. Matt and I will go over it step-by-step in 2 weeks at our first race - and after 15 minutes of discussion, it will be clear how it works and he will be able to apply it to his car. The issue is that we will have some debate as to 'what is right and when' - stuff that you can't do when you see this written out...that in a lot of cases leads to more questions that can't be immediately answered like they can be in conversation/debate.

[gran racing]

but I can tell you honestly that there is not one car that I know of off the top of my head that is 'light' by less than 100lbs..

That's a bit concerning. LOL

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's a bit concerning. LOL

Why? All the cars that were light by 100 or more got corrected. The point is all the cars are over by less than 100lbs - and there are probably no ACTUAL 200lb differences - just THEORETICAL.

[lateapex911]

Well, it's hard to go over history, but my understanding of the situation was that after the classes got the performance targets finalized, the ITAC went through and made some adjustments, which has become known as "The Great realignment" or "The Feb addendum".

Understand that there are literally hundreds of models in the ITCS, and each car needs to have some basic facts to make weight specs: Stock HP, Engine type and IT power, suspension info, brake info, transmission, stock weight and IT achievable weight.

So, as I understood it, the "Great realignment" was to go through the ITCS, look at the cars on a case by case basis, skip over the obscure and un-raced cars, and hit the "High" and "low" points...in this case when we ran a car through the process, if it wasn't "off" by 100 pounds, it didn't get a close scrutiny and adjustment. That was left for the next step, which would be member driven. (Remember, any ITAC member is also an SCCA member. So requesting a car to be run through the process can be done by anyone, in or out of the ITAC.)

Now, again, it's my understanding that when such requests are made, the granularity of "go-no go" is finer...50 pounds. That's the operative limit.

Obviously, with hundreds of cars to go through, research and act on, the ITAC had to spend months, and lots of loooooong con calls, so opening up the granularity was appropriate for the "Great realignment". But, the actual granularity in use is, to the best of my understanding, 50 pounds.

[gran racing]

Why? Because I was just busting on you and giving you a hard time.That's all. :cool: The way I read that sentence meant that you couldn't think of a car that wasn't off by at least 100 lbs. I knew what you meant.

I never said the process is a secret, but was responding to your statement that the previous group never had it documented. It made me raise my eyebrows when you openly state that "its very hard to put in writing" and this group also doesn't have it fully documented. (I fully understand there are some subjective items when classing cars and don't have a problem with that.) So I found your statement about the previous group ironic. You guys are doing an absolutely fantastic job and give you a ton of credit for it. I'll even buy you and Gulick the first round for our beer discussion.

Since Kirk seems to think it's just about a me factor, I benefited hugely by the adjustments made as it wasn't very long ago my Prelude was in ITA at the same exact weight. Maybe I actually care about ITB more than just how it impacts just my car directly K.? Nah, you're right. :rolleyes: Whatever.

[Knestis]

>> (Andy) ... I have said a million times that anything inside of 100lbs of it's process weight wasn't adjusted during the 'correction' of Feb 06.

>> (Jake) Now, again, it's my understanding that when such requests are made, the granularity of "go-no go" is finer...50 pounds. That's the operative limit.

AH - I failed to make the distinction between the two circumstances. Thanks.

K

[Bill Miller]

Can you quote those quotes? i'd like to see who and what context...


Unless I am not understanding what is being disputed, I have said a million times that anything inside of 100lbs of it's process weight wasn't adjusted during the 'correction' of Feb 06.

Is that good enough for you Jake?


So, as I understood it, the "Great realignment" was to go through the ITCS, look at the cars on a case by case basis, skip over the obscure and un-raced cars, and hit the "High" and "low" points...in this case when we ran a car through the process, if it wasn't "off" by 100 pounds, it didn't get a close scrutiny and adjustment. That was left for the next step, which would be member driven. (Remember, any ITAC member is also an SCCA member. So requesting a car to be run through the process can be done by anyone, in or out of the ITAC.)

Now, again, it's my understanding that when such requests are made, the granularity of "go-no go" is finer...50 pounds. That's the operative limit.

Help me understand this. You ran all the cars through the process, got process weights for them, and then used a +/- 100# limit to decide if they would get adjusted or not. Some cars got adjusted. But, if someone asks for their car to get looked at again, it's now a +/- 50# window? You were already adjusting cars, why not just work w/ the +/- 50# window, if that's what you ultimately intended it to be?

Newly classed cars get the benefit of landing spot on their process weight, yet other cars could be +/- up to 100#? Does anyone else think this just a tad bit screwy?

One of the main things behind the 'great realignment' was that all the cars were supposed to be run through the process, and adjusted if necessary. That was a pro-active objective operation (or at least it was supposed to be). But now, it looks like it was a "we'll get you close, but if you ask us again, we might be able to sharpen our pencils a bit". This +/- 50# or +/- 100# window is pretty much BS. Either you had faith in the process numbers or you didn't. You input the data, turn the crank, and the number that comes out the back is the number that you use. Sure, some people might be upset if their car gained weight, but you could point to an objective process that was equally applied to all cars (gee, where have I heard that before?). If the people w/ the newly classified cars get the benefit of 'hitting' their process weight, so should the people w/ the rest of the cars.

I can certainly see where there would be cases where the weights would have hovered around the cage size 'boundaries', and you would have had issues where some people might have had to re-cage. Those could have been handled on a case by case basis, as I would be willing to bet that there wouldn't be that many of them.

And Jake, please. I am really tired of the "hey, we're only volunteers, it takes a lot of time to do these things." argument. If you're not willing to accept the responsibility of the job, which includes how much effort you need to put out, don't volunteer. It's that simple. I've dealt w/ the same thing in many of the volunteer organizations that I've been a part of. We had people on the FD that only wanted to go to working calls, they didn't want to come to work details, they didn't want to go to the activated alarms in the middle of the night, they didn't want to work fund raisers, etc., etc., etc. And the excuse that you always heard, was that "Hey, it's a volunteer position.". Just because it's a volunteer position doesn't mean you can pick and choose what you want to do. If you can't meet the requirements of the position, don't volunteer. But more importantly, don't use the fact that it's a volunteer position to justify why you can't do the job correctly.

[lateapex911]

Is that good enough for you Jake?




And Jake, please. I am really tired of the "hey, we're only volunteers, it takes a lot of time to do these things." argument. If you're not willing to accept the responsibility of the job, which includes how much effort you need to put out, don't volunteer. It's that simple. I've dealt w/ the same thing in many of the volunteer organizations that I've been a part of. We had people on the FD that only wanted to go to working calls, they didn't want to come to work details, they didn't want to go to the activated alarms in the middle of the night, they didn't want to work fund raisers, etc., etc., etc. And the excuse that you always heard, was that "Hey, it's a volunteer position.". Just because it's a volunteer position doesn't mean you can pick and choose what you want to do. If you can't meet the requirements of the position, don't volunteer. But more importantly, don't use the fact that it's a volunteer position to justify why you can't do the job correctly.

Bill, honestly, fry me on a stick for this...whatever.

The real world happens to revolve around lives and balance. Yes, it IS hard to find NINE freaken guys who have wives and jobs and family that will sit and debate this stuff for 8 hours on the phone for months on end. Sorry, but that the way it is. And don't shoot this at me...my con call attendance and contributions are top of the charts.

And I know for sure that back in the day when this was all coming down, you, among others, cried for something to adjust and get close. It was never decreed as perfect...and we always said we'd take it by stages, and that 90% of the problem existed in 10% of the cars.

Yes, it's a volunteer organization, and with that come balances. So be it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

As it stands right now, there has been no 'sharpening of any pencils'. If someone writes in and asks for a re-evaluation, here is a real-world example of what to expect:

Porshe 924 in ITB. 2600lbs currently. Process weight with subjective adders is 2495. Because this is more than 100lbs outside the current weight, it gets corrected. If it was 75lbs, it would have stayed put at 2600.

Now, the philisophical question comes into play. If it was 75lbs, and we did the work, do we reset the weight? Currently we do not. Couple reasons why.

First, if we did, we would get a flood of letters in asking for an evaluation. This stuff just can't get done expeditiously. If you knew how much time we spend on each car, you would be shocked. It's about sorting out 7 or 8 different opinions and coming to a consensus.

Second, the difference in driver ability, prep level, chassis dynamic, tire choice, etc, etc, etc. is so great that we think there is obviously some room for error here. What is that 'figure', currently +/- 100 lbs. I am sure the +/- 50lbs is a simple 'loss in translation'.

Is 100lbs right? Heck, I would love to have every car right on the 'process' but if you knew how much effort is put into each car (I am sure Kirk laughs at the debates) it would take us prohibitively long to do so. It would be MUCH easier to use Jake's (racerjake) spreadsheet to tighten up the value than it would be to run everyone.

The question for ya'll is what is the number (or percentage) that is reasonable to 'err' with given what we are. And understanding what we 'are' is key.

[Bill Miller]

As it stands right now, there has been no 'sharpening of any pencils'. If someone writes in and asks for a re-evaluation, here is a real-world example of what to expect:

Porshe 924 in ITB. 2600lbs currently. Process weight with subjective adders is 2495. Because this is more than 100lbs outside the current weight, it gets corrected. If it was 75lbs, it would have stayed put at 2600.

Now, the philisophical question comes into play. If it was 75lbs, and we did the work, do we reset the weight? Currently we do not. Couple reasons why.

First, if we did, we would get a flood of letters in asking for an evaluation. This stuff just can't get done expeditiously. If you knew how much time we spend on each car, you would be shocked. It's about sorting out 7 or 8 different opinions and coming to a consensus.

Second, the difference in driver ability, prep level, chassis dynamic, tire choice, etc, etc, etc. is so great that we think there is obviously some room for error here. What is that 'figure', currently +/- 100 lbs. I am sure the +/- 50lbs is a simple 'loss in translation'.

Is 100lbs right? Heck, I would love to have every car right on the 'process' but if you knew how much effort is put into each car (I am sure Kirk laughs at the debates) it would take us prohibitively long to do so. It would be MUCH easier to use Jake's (racerjake) spreadsheet to tighten up the value than it would be to run everyone.

The question for ya'll is what is the number (or percentage) that is reasonable to 'err' with given what we are. And understanding what we 'are' is key.

Andy,

You had the perfect opportunity to reset all the weights during the 'great realignment'. No flood of letters asking for evaluations, just a simple "Here's what this predominantly objective process that we use says that this car should weigh." Use the 'close enough' to handle cases where it would have bumped a car to a different cage 'bucket', if it was that close.

Anyway, the whole reason for my previous post was a response to this.


So, as I understood it, the "Great realignment" was to go through the ITCS, look at the cars on a case by case basis, skip over the obscure and un-raced cars, and hit the "High" and "low" points...in this case when we ran a car through the process, if it wasn't "off" by 100 pounds, it didn't get a close scrutiny and adjustment. That was left for the next step, which would be member driven. (Remember, any ITAC member is also an SCCA member. So requesting a car to be run through the process can be done by anyone, in or out of the ITAC.)

Now, again, it's my understanding that when such requests are made, the granularity of "go-no go" is finer...50 pounds. That's the operative limit.

Obviously, with hundreds of cars to go through, research and act on, the ITAC had to spend months, and lots of loooooong con calls, so opening up the granularity was appropriate for the "Great realignment". But, the actual granularity in use is, to the best of my understanding, 50 pounds.

That's coming from another member of the ITAC. Your position seems to be significantly different than Jake's. You guys have both been at this for a while now, I find this apparent lack of communication to be disconcerting.

And Jake, just stop it. You asked me to quote posts because you thought you were going to catch me in something and that I wouldn't be able to find any posts to support my claim. So don't try to make it look like I'm trying to roast you. You tried to pull something and got caught. Man up and deal w/ it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

While I haven't spoken to Jake on the subject specifically, I am sure it's just a misunderstanding of the definaition.

As far as resetting the weights, I will disagree on the 'ease' of the task. We COULD have, yes. But the amount of work is monumental. If it were a formula, it would be no problem - but since each car is addressed WRT it's potential adders, it becomes VERY cumbersome. We looked at each of the cars outside of the 100lb window and rest 30+ of them. If we used 50lbs, it would have been 100+ I am sure. If we used 25lbs, I bet it would have been 300+ cars. And again, it's just not a plug-and-play situation. This crap takes time. LOTS of time. 300+ is unmanagable IMHO. (Roungh estimate has the ITCS classing 340+ cars)

The issue becomes one of what is 'right' and/or what is 'acceptable' in IT for this 'slop'. If you are saying that this will never be good enough until each and every car has been reset onto it's perfect target number, then I accept that. I just don't think it's possible in a short (reasonable) period of time.

[Eagle7]

This is driving me nuts. I've had a lot of confidence in "the process" and the grand realignment, but this discussion doesn't jive with my assumptions. Sounds like we've got a gang of cowboys shootin' from the hip. I've learned:

The "process" can't be written down, but after a 15 minute "discussion", I might "get it". If you can't write it down it isn't a process.
The ITAC spends hours debating an individual car before they can agree on the outcome of the process. Previously we were told we could ask any ITAC member about any car and would get the same answer because they understand the process.
We didn't write down the rationalle for setting the weight of the cars that were evaluated. So I guess we can't determine how a car's weight was set.
Different ITAC members have different understandings about how the process is applied - 50# vs 100#.
Publicizing the process and the factors for each car would cause a great commotion. Well, based on the prior points I can see why. There is a great deal of value in public review of things of this nature. It won't be improved if it remains a mystery.Guys, I'm concerned. I think we've got a ways to go before "the process" will pass muster.

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

While I haven't spoken to Jake on the subject specifically, I am sure it's just a misunderstanding of the definaition.

As far as resetting the weights, I will disagree on the 'ease' of the task. We COULD have, yes. But the amount of work is monumental. If it were a formula, it would be no problem - but since each car is addressed WRT it's potential adders, it becomes VERY cumbersome. We looked at each of the cars outside of the 100lb window and rest 30+ of them. If we used 50lbs, it would have been 100+ I am sure. If we used 25lbs, I bet it would have been 300+ cars. And again, it's just not a plug-and-play situation. This crap takes time. LOTS of time. 300+ is unmanagable IMHO. (Roungh estimate has the ITCS classing 340+ cars)

The issue becomes one of what is 'right' and/or what is 'acceptable' in IT for this 'slop'. If you are saying that this will never be good enough until each and every car has been reset onto it's perfect target number, then I accept that. I just don't think it's possible in a short (reasonable) period of time.

I guess that's where I didn't understand how the process worked w.r.t. the GR (Great Realignment). I figured that you had already gone through the process for each car (with the understanding that some cars just didn't get looked at because they really aren't raced). I thought that meant that all the 'adders' were examined for those cars that were run through the process. Isn't that how the process weight was determined, so that you could determine if the current (at the time) spec weight was w/in that 100# window?

I'm just trying to understand this. I thought I did before, but now I'm not so sure. I'm not trying to over-simplify this, but I am having a hard time understanding that if you looked at the numbers to see if they were w/in the window, why would they need to be re-visited or re-generated if you were going to actually adjust the weight of the car?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I guess that's where I didn't understand how the process worked w.r.t. the GR (Great Realignment). I figured that you had already gone through the process for each car (with the understanding that some cars just didn't get looked at because they really aren't raced). I thought that meant that all the 'adders' were examined for those cars that were run through the process. Isn't that how the process weight was determined, so that you could determine if the current (at the time) spec weight was w/in that 100# window?

I'm just trying to understand this. I thought I did before, but now I'm not so sure. I'm not trying to over-simplify this, but I am having a hard time understanding that if you looked at the numbers to see if they were w/in the window, why would they need to be re-visited or re-generated if you were going to actually adjust the weight of the car?

I get what you are asking. You are asumming that each car went through the whole process. What happened was that each car was taken through the 'formula' portion (via spreadsheet) and any that were outside the 100lbs got seperated into another group for a much better scrub down. You guys have to remember that when this happened all of this thinking was very radical for IT so anything too 'minute' was going to really make the BoD think twice about allowing us to move forward.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is driving me nuts. I've had a lot of confidence in "the process" and the grand realignment, but this discussion doesn't jive with my assumptions. Sounds like we've got a gang of cowboys shootin' from the hip. I've learned:

The "process" can't be written down, but after a 15 minute "discussion", I might "get it". If you can't write it down it isn't a process.
The ITAC spends hours debating an individual car before they can agree on the outcome of the process. Previously we were told we could ask any ITAC member about any car and would get the same answer because they understand the process.
We didn't write down the rationalle for setting the weight of the cars that were evaluated. So I guess we can't determine how a car's weight was set.
Different ITAC members have different understandings about how the process is applied - 50# vs 100#.
Publicizing the process and the factors for each car would cause a great commotion. Well, based on the prior points I can see why. There is a great deal of value in public review of things of this nature. It won't be improved if it remains a mystery.Guys, I'm concerned. I think we've got a ways to go before "the process" will pass muster.

The process is written down. It's part formula and part guidelines for subjective adders. The issues is that when you just 'read' it, the guidelines are all there but you start thinking about what got what, when and why. Stuff that can be easily explained in a conversation but is also hard to go back and forth about via the web or e-mail just ny the nature of debate, explanation and tone. (edit #2: The 100lb 'bar' is not part of the written process upon inspection. I will fix that today)

It's not about hours for each car. Some cars take a few monutes, some take much longer. Just because it make take a while doesn't mean, in the end, everyone isn't on the same page and can explain the thought process and rationale.

I can go back and run the process for any car and tell you why the weight was set as such. (edit: We have started documenting the methodology for each car changed to provide historical record)

Just because Jake is misunderstanding the 100/50lb thing doesn't mean the sky is falling. It is actually 'excersized' so rarely that I can see how it never solidified, but I will take responsibility for that.

The architecture for the process has been explain in detail on the site many times yet people still think it is some secret. The propblem remains that there are tons of 'debateable' factors in each classification, so when 100 people want to debate given their own circumstance, it becomes counter-productive IMHO.

Like I said, I am always happy to explain in person or on the phone but the typing back and forth is just a waste of time. Look at how this BB works as an example.

[Greg Amy]

Allow me to jump in here and drop an opinion in regard to the 100/50# thing.

Andy (and ITAC et al), I have differences in opinion on the 100/50# thing, on two basic counts:

One, when you allow +/-100 pounds (or whatever), you have a very real risk of two cars in the same class being separated by 200# (one is -100, one is +100). While you may discard a difference of 100#, it's really hard to ignore the possibility of twice that.

Two, if you've gone to all the trouble of working out the classification weight of a particular car, and it's different than the current one WHY NOT change it? I mean, even if it's only 2 pounds (to offer an extreme example), what's the downside to recommending it to the CRB and having it implemented? The investigation and work is already done, so publish the sucker! I sincerely don't see a problem with minor adjustments, and you completely eliminate arguments/discussions such as this.

Convince me otherwise, but it sure seems like a lot LESS work to simply move forward with these requests...it's almost like you spend more time trying to avoid re-weights rather than lean towards parity for all cars...which ends up causing more work (see post counts above and sideways on this issue..)

GA

[Knestis]

I'd propose that before anyone gets sideways about how the process works, they clarify their own personal philosophy about what it should accomplish. Broadly speaking, you have two options that define ends of the current philosophical spectrum with respect to IT cars:

1. Have a rock-solid quantitative "formula" (and I'll use that word purposefully) for which anyone could plug numbers into a spreadsheet and have the race weight pop out the other end. This approach provides repeatability and transparency.

2. Have a "process" (a different word, for clarity) that adds to the above factors including IT-prep power gain, and adders/subtractors for other attributes. Importantly, while the factors are quantifiable, they are determined qualitatively by human beings with different perceptions. This approach comes closer to "getting it right" for every make/model listed.

Your choice depends on a lot of things, probably.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Deleted because I like Kirk's better....

[Greg Amy]

Deleted because I like Kirk's better....
OK, so instead of answering you want us to defend the question? Sorry, I'm not playing that game. If that's how you want to play, you're on your own with the crowd...and expect them to become a lot more riled up...

Out.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg,

Mine was just a specific rebuttle to your points. We all can continue to go back and forth on individual issues forever. What I agree we need to do is define our fundamental base position and move forward from there. What I often see from you is bashing of specifc points yet no solutions or specific opinions of your own. I ask you a 'king for a day' question and you respond with 4 different answers that never puts YOUR opinion out there for examination.

If you were on the ITAC, how would YOU do it? Put something out there.

[Knestis]

...and if I WERE King Kirk, I'd opt for Option 1. I think that predictable and defensible trumps "right" - for exactly the reason illustrated by folks here being upset/worried about what's going on.

HOWEVER, by doing that I give up all rights to complain if that formula spits out a race weight that becomes problematic for me. From conversations with him on the subject, I think Greg falls philosophically on the same end of the spectrum as I do, but there are other perspectives on the ITAC, held by racers who think we can "get closer" to being "right" by using subjective considerations.

I wasn't responding to Greg's question - he beat me to the click. But for what it's worth, every request that has come in for re-examination or initial classification since i started has moved through the process, accepting that some are tabled pending additional information being made available. I'd submit that it IS a potential problem, that we can get very bogged down (again, trying to do the right thing) during this part of the process. For example, the MR2 classification still hinges on whether it can make it's current ITA weight, and we have compelling evidence suggesting it can. And that it can't.

>> ... if you've gone to all the trouble of working out the classification weight of a particular car, and it's different than the current one WHY NOT change it? I mean, even if it's only 2 pounds (to offer an extreme example), what's the downside to recommending it to the CRB and having it implemented?

Philosophically, I agree. However, the "confidence interval" of the current process isn't that narrow. Proposing a 10# change when the current process has room for more than that many pounds of subjectivity involved isn't sound practice. If Hil's leading Obama in the polls by 2 points and the methodology is good to +/- 3%, she's not "winning."

Which brings me back to my question and our assumptions/values/etc. Greg's question stands because he would apply a "formula" approach rather than a "system" approach. If a huge majority of the membership feel the same way, it makes the process a lot easier and provides certainty. But there's a price to be paid for that.

K

[shwah]

OK so correct me if I have this wrong. All cars were not run through the process during the great realignment. Cars that are raced were dropped into the formula, and if over 100# off were run through the process.

If that is accurate - then we don't really know if the cars that were not adjusted are within 100# of process weight or not. Even though many of us thought this for the last several years.

IMO all the active cars that were not adjusted (and those that were not adjusted because they went through the process and came up between 50 and 99# off) should be run through the whole process, and a 50# or greater variation should be corrected.

As an aside, it is often stated that a given weight difference is too small to make a difference because the average IT driver isn't consistent enough, or prep level can more than account for that difference. OK - so what happens when two equally average (or god forbid good) drivers show up in equally well prepped (or equally poorly prepped) cars? I'm sorry but at some points that weight makes a difference in the performance of the cars, whether we are talking about Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Massa or Chris Schaafsma and Dave Gran. If it didn't matter, then we wouldn't have spec weights.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Slight clarification Chris:

All the cars were dropped into the formula. Most that were over 100lbs were sent to a secondary group for scrub-down and subjective adder consideration. SOME cars that were over 100lbs off were not included in the scrub-down because there was not enough information and no desire to race these cars - or the numbers had scary implications.

A prime example is the 2810 lb 3.8L Chevy Monza in ITA. That car has 110 stock hp. We were/are afraid of how that motor wakes up in IT trim once to get all the smog crap off of it and throw some go-fast bits on it (see TR8 HP in ITS). By formula, it's around a 2340lb ITB car...so the decision was made (and some like it) to leave it alone until someone who actually wanted to race one asks us to do some more research (hopefully with their help) and apply the full process. Cars like this are the kind that got 'left-out'. You can assume most every car anyone would seriously consider racing had a serious look.

[Bill Miller]

power to weight look w/o any consideration given to 'adders'?
kirjk, i think the only thing that can't be plugged into the formula is the deviation from a 25% gain in IT trim. everything else is just a check box. one other comment, should adders be a percentage rather than a fixed amount? see my earlier comment about percentage

[shwah]

Slight clarification Chris:

All the cars were dropped into the formula. Most that were over 100lbs were sent to a secondary group for scrub-down and subjective adder consideration. SOME cars that were over 100lbs off were not included in the scrub-down because there was not enough information and no desire to race these cars - or the numbers had scary implications.

Were the ones that were less than 100# off in the raw formula given any additional consideration? If no, I think they should be. It is not a small task, but the right thing to do would be to set up a plan to review to confirm or correct a certain number of cars per quarter, until they are all up to date. Of course keeping records of the process so that it does not have to be started from scratch when a future letter is written.


You can assume most every car anyone would seriously consider racing had a serious look.
It sounds like this is the case IF it fell 100# outside the straight formula. If not - it may in fact be over 100# off process, but was never fully reviewed.

[MMiskoe]

Kirk - your option 2 is a more realisict approach. There are too many subtle differences that won't allow a plug & chug equation to spit out a weight. However, publishing a weight w/ no back up for how it was arrived at just creates questions. Publishing the details will let those on the outside looking in gain some trust on how the weight was decided (provided there is some logic and consistancy applied to the various parts that are not concrete). Plus it will save several posts here asking what parameters were used.



The process is written down. It's part formula and part guidelines for subjective adders. The issues is that when you just 'read' it, the guidelines are all there but you start thinking about what got what, when and why. Stuff that can be easily explained in a conversation but is also hard to go back and forth about via the web or e-mail just ny the nature of debate, explanation and tone.


I got the part that it includes some subjective portions, that is understood. But where is it written down? Don't tell me on this board. Us kids on this board are no better than on the playgroud at recess. What counts is what is published in the FT and subsequently in the GCR. Stuff written here doesn't bear any weight. Besides if it is on this board somewhere (provide link please) is an unrealistic approach. Can you honestly expect someone to sifting through every thread that will show up when you do a search on the word "process"?


Matt

[Bill Miller]

And just to clarify, I have never nor will I ever advocate for an absolute formula. I'm not naive enough to think that you can get it that close, or that right. Refine the model as more data are gathered (e.g. does it make more sense to use a percentage for adders than a fixed value?). And make case-by-case tweaks (not gonna use the "A" word!) when it's appropriate (e.g. Vtec, etc.).

And maybe it needs to be refined even further. I'm not so sure that being a FWD strut car makes as much of a difference in ITC or ITB as it does in ITS or ITR. They way the 'adders' are factored in, and exactly what value, and how it is determined, may vary from class to class.

I think back to when we worked on the ITR project. I don't remember much gnashing of teeth or painfully long discussion about what the cars should weigh. We defined a target ratio, assigned values to the 'adders' (most of which came from the ITAC classification process) and started running the cars through. Jeff and Ron did a fair amount of the heavy lifting vis-a-vis putting the data all together (and forgive me if I forgot someone), but I'm sure they'll tell you that it wasn't that painful.

[Knestis]

LOL - Maybe we should enlist you, Bill to resolve the question of the V8 Camaros and Mustangs in ITR, then. No gnashing!

Using the current process would be a snap if one could convene a subcommittee of five guys, all with the same mindset, priorities, assumptions, and beliefs. The problem is that everyone would be PO'd about any given decision, except for people who benefit from it. An SCCA Ad Hoc committee is made up of a broader slice of the membership and we strive for consensus. Scott Giles will tell you that the best thing about SCCA - and maybe the worst thing - is that rules changes are hard...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill is correct that the ITR classifications were pretty easy. Easy in that most of the cars look the 'same'. I don't think anything got adders for 'big brakes' or anything out of the ordinary because this level of stuff was pretty good to begin with. Not much subjective equalization had to be done.

Other than S2000 power potential and Type R torque, it was all pretty standard. Plus there just seemed to be a broader knowledge base about the newer cars than having to rely on one 'expert' on the gazillion iterations of X, Y and Z from the 70's and 80's.

[shwah]

Were the ones that were less than 100# off in the raw formula given any additional consideration? If no, I think they should be. It is not a small task, but the right thing to do would be to set up a plan to review to confirm or correct a certain number of cars per quarter, until they are all up to date. Of course keeping records of the process so that it does not have to be started from scratch when a future letter is written.


You can assume most every car anyone would seriously consider racing had a serious look.

It sounds like this is the case IF it fell 100# outside the straight formula. If not - it may in fact be over 100# off process, but was never fully reviewed.

Does someone know this?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Does someone know this?

Not fully reviewed is differnent that getting consideration. Fact is that 90% of 'adders' are actually weight off for FWD. In order to get weight added, the car has to exibit something that is anomalous when comapared to the class it is in. Those cars stick out when looking over the ITCS. So thinks like double wishbones, 'big' brakes, superior tranny ratios (like a 1:1 5th gear), etc.

What I am saying is that it is very unlikley that a car slipped through that wasn't 100lbs over - then would become 100+lbs over when the adders were applied. What actually happened in many cases was something was 100lbs heavy in the formula portion and then was around 50 when you took into account FWD.

I am willing to bet that 95% of the cars are within 75lbs of their target weight (assuming some of the cars like the Monza havn't been adjusted and some are between 75 and 99lbs).

[shwah]

I'm guessing it is a typo that a car 100# over on the formula becomes 50# over when fwd subtraction is incorporated, because that would result in the car sitting 150# over spec weight (assuming 50# is the fwd subtractor).

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm guessing it is a typo that a car 100# over on the formula becomes 50# over when fwd subtraction is incorporated, because that would result in the car sitting 150# over spec weight (assuming 50# is the fwd subtractor).

Yes. In my example, the car was 'light' and was a candidate for additional weight at base formula but then fell into range with the 50lb allowance for FWD (100lbs in ITR and ITS).

You could run it backward where a RWD wishbone car has to add a net 50lbs for suspension.

[JeffYoung]

That was the one issue that really gnawed at us, the V8s. It was a tough call for all, but I think leaving them out to begin with was the right decision. Bill is right though, for whatever reason, we really didn't have much bickering about what cars should be in ITR, and what they should weigh. The class pretty much fell together "naturally."


LOL - Maybe we should enlist you, Bill to resolve the question of the V8 Camaros and Mustangs in ITR, then. No gnashing!

Using the current process would be a snap if one could convene a subcommittee of five guys, all with the same mindset, priorities, assumptions, and beliefs. The problem is that everyone would be PO'd about any given decision, except for people who benefit from it. An SCCA Ad Hoc committee is made up of a broader slice of the membership and we strive for consensus. Scott Giles will tell you that the best thing about SCCA - and maybe the worst thing - is that rules changes are hard...

K

[JeffYoung]

Exactly. Modern cars are MUCH easier to balance. They all have vented discs. They all have EFI. They all have decent gear boxes. They all have, with a few exceptions, decent torque and HP. No real outliers, other than the V8s (low hp and big torque) and the high revving 4s (S2000, Type R and Celica GT-S).

It's not a plain vanilla class at all, but it was much easier than trying to balance within 100 lbs cars spread over a 30 year time period with disc brakes, drum brakes, live rears, double wishbones, EFI, crap old EFI, mechanical injection, carbs, etc. etc. etc. Asking the ITAC to do that to the entire ITCS is just not possible.

RIght now, I see no glaring errors in ITS anyway, and the instances in other classes that have been raised here boil down to 50 or 100 lbs. In my mind, that's noise -- noise the driver can overcome, or fail to overcome.


Bill is correct that the ITR classifications were pretty easy. Easy in that most of the cars look the 'same'. I don't think anything got adders for 'big brakes' or anything out of the ordinary because this level of stuff was pretty good to begin with. Not much subjective equalization had to be done.

Other than S2000 power potential and Type R torque, it was all pretty standard. Plus there just seemed to be a broader knowledge base about the newer cars than having to rely on one 'expert' on the gazillion iterations of X, Y and Z from the 70's and 80's.

[lateapex911]

Exactly. Modern cars are MUCH easier to balance. They all have vented discs. They all have EFI. They all have decent gear boxes. They all have, with a few exceptions, decent torque and HP. No real outliers, other than the V8s (low hp and big torque) and the high revving 4s (S2000, Type R and Celica GT-S).

ITR wasn't easy to put together because of what was IN the class, it was easy because of what was left out.

The 'Merucun V8s, and the RX-8 rotary.

EACH of those is a unique case. (The V8s are torquers, but strangled, and the IT increase needed debating, plus they have relatively small brakes compared to the rest of the field. (In the bottom 10%), wonky suspensions, and not wonderful weight distribution. And they're among the heaviest.

The RX-8 is the polar opposite...no torque, lots of high revs, good brakes, suspension and weight balance, and it's middle of the road weightwise.

And each discussion gets into core philosophy, which cubes the complications.

[dickita15]

Plus there was no constituency of current car owners to complain about the choices.

[Knestis]

Plus there was no constituency of current car owners to complain about the choices.


A really excellent point. It's also possible that people who tend to consider preconceptions or "real world data" didn't have any experience with the makes/models listed. Or none of the ITR subcommittee members tends to think that direction. It's way easier to use theoretical values if that's the case...

K

[Bill Miller]

You're right Kirk, that is a good point. IIRC, the only ITS cars that 'went up', were the E36 and the Prelude (possibly a Supra). So we really had no history to muddy the waters.

All in all, that was a fun exercise, and a good group to be a part of.