ITB - what a bunch of crap

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, just wanted to get your attention.

I had resisted the assertion that ITB was the 'new ITA' - but heck, this class is really redifining itself into something special. Accords, Civic's, CRX's, Volvo's, Golfs, 924's, BMW's, Audi's, Preludes, a freakin' gorgeous Alfa...

Awesome guys. Awesome. Add in Scott, The Canadians, the Blethens, Beren, Boo-hee - and oh-snap is that a showdown.

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?

[RacerBowie]

I think ITS growth is a year or two out, and will be followed by the beginning surge of ITR. ITA and ITB are both VERY strong, ITC seems to be hanging in there.

[joeg]

ITS may be too expensive...

[JeffYoung]

I've raced in several 25 car plus ITS fields this year. CMP, Roebling and Daytona have drawn good, solid fields. Not sure why the ARRC was so down this year. Of course, I didn't go so I'm part of the problem......

There are a lot more S cars out there now racing than when I started in 04. Fixing the BMW problem really brought a lot of folks back.

[lateapex911]

Yes, and if it hadn't been for the lap 5 schlmazzle at turn 7, the race looked like it would be a barn burner, with lots of position swapping in the top 5, which could have been covered by a blanket.. I was really digging it up to that point. At the end, Vaughan did his best to hang on for 2nd, but Aaron pressed by, so we got some dicing on the last lap.

That Alfa LOOKED cool, but, it was reliable in it's unreliability.

And yes, (coughs throat) the Blethens should have been there. I talked to Beran in impound in Jersey, and could have sworn he was going...

ITA of course, was lacking a certain FOM Miata.........:mad:

[robits325is]

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?

ITS might turn into spec RX7 once the VIN rule takes affect Maybe ITS needs a bailout....

[JeffYoung]

I don't see that, at least in the SEDiv. We have very competitive RX7s, E46 323, E30 325s, 240z, 260z, 280z, 280zx, Porsche 944s, Mazda Miata, TR8, 190E, Integra GSR, hell even an Alfa Milano and a 924s.......

[Ron Earp]

ITS might turn into spec RX7 once the VIN rule takes affect Maybe ITS needs a bailout....

ITS seems to be well attended and diverse in the SE. More Z cars than I've ever seen before (only attending tracks for three years), Miatas, Porsches, BMWs (not just 325s like it used to be), Integra, etc. - and more importantly, the cars upfront seem to be swapping around quite a bit.

Did see a LOT of RX7s at Daytona, but there are a lot of old Speedsource cars down that way and location helps.

Ron

[seckerich]

With the economy in the tank it seemed all year that drivers were just picking the races that offered the most fun and track time. Very few were actually chasing points. ITS can be very expensive and I spoke to a lot of drivers that usually run the ARRC that just decided to sit this year out. Judging by the number of orders for parts and cars I would not count on a drop in ITS. If we all still have jobs (or get a racing bailout:rolleyes:) look for some big fields next year. In the Southeast we have scheduled more doubles than ever before to help cut cost. I will be surprised to see ITR move much in the next few years. Racing with yourself is not a big draw to build $40,000 cars.

[bamfp]

There will be a 914 next year.;)

[gran racing]

Oh come on Andy, ITB sucks. Your list includes a bunch of old cars except the Golf. Dave, whose hoping that a $10K car can still have a shot of winning races and is totally fine with it not being the "cool" class.

If I had money, I'd still build / buy an ITA car. Although I did find myself checking out the prices of an ITB potential Mini in my dream land. They ain't cheap.

[Jeremy Billiel]

ITS might turn into spec RX7 once the VIN rule takes affect Maybe ITS needs a bailout....

LOL Rob Good one... Up here in the North East the only real diversity is a lonely GSR and a couple of BMW's. Otherwise it is the RX7 show.

On that note, we have got the new integra shell home and will be beginning the rebuild soon.

[924Guy]

LOL! Cheers, Andy! Yeah, we were bound and determined to give the Honduh boys fits, till things went all pear-shaped on lap 4... rest assured that when we're back, all will be at our mercy!!! :D

Porsches Rock!

(write that down)

PS - I think the reason ITS was weak was everyone heard Kip was returning, only with his 944, and collectively said "Aw, F@*#!" ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

ITS might turn into spec RX7 once the VIN rule takes affect Maybe ITS needs a bailout....

What does the VIN rule have to do with an ITS RX-7? You can UD/BD now...:rolleyes:

[JeffYoung]

David Spillman went faster (lap time wise) in a 240z.........


LOL! Cheers, Andy! Yeah, we were bound and determined to give the Honduh boys fits, till things went all pear-shaped on lap 4... rest assured that when we're back, all will be at our mercy!!! :D

Porsches Rock!

(write that down)

PS - I think the reason ITS was weak was everyone heard Kip was returning, only with his 944, and collectively said "Aw, F@*#!" ;)

[Z3_GoCar]

OK, just wanted to get your attention.

I had resisted the assertion that ITB was the 'new ITA' - but heck, this class is really redifining itself into something special. Accords, Civic's, CRX's, Volvo's, Golfs, 924's, BMW's, Audi's, Preludes, a freakin' gorgeous Alfa...

Awesome guys. Awesome. Add in Scott, The Canadians, the Blethens, Beren, Boo-hee - and oh-snap is that a showdown.

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?

:unsure: You mean there are classes where winning a trophy isn't a given?? Maybe it's the nature of the economy and how hard we were hit, but the last couple of years has seen some major shrinkage in the paddock. If you want to run aginst more than 2 others in your class, your options are limited to: SRF, SP (because of all the American Stockcar Racers), Pro7, SM, and by extension ITA. Even classes like Pro7, which has it's own run group, is at like 5-7 regular cars. Imagine flagging for a five car run group, we got two minute worker breaks every lap.

[Andy Bettencourt]

:unsure: You mean there are classes where winning a trophy isn't a given?? Maybe it's the nature of the economy and how hard we were hit, but the last couple of years has seen some major shrinkage in the paddock. If you want to run aginst more than 2 others in your class, your options are limited to: SRF, SP (because of all the American Stockcar Racers), Pro7, SM, and by extension ITA. Even classes like Pro7, which has it's own run group, is at like 5-7 regular cars. Imagine flagging for a five car run group, we got two minute worker breaks every lap.

Wow. Where are you racing? That's a dang shame. 15-20 car ITS and ITA fields in New England wer the norm for 2008. ITB grew this year. ITR sees 3-5 cars and ITC 1-2.

[Z3_GoCar]

Wow. Where are you racing? That's a dang shame. 15-20 car ITS and ITA fields in New England wer the norm for 2008. ITB grew this year. ITR sees 3-5 cars and ITC 1-2.

Southern California, heart of the mortgage meltdown. I'm even concerned, and haven't been racing while I spend to rebuild.

[dspillrat]

Congrads to Kip on his ITS win. Bout time..Smile.....:happy204:

I think he really MIGHT not have shown his hand completely with his silver bullet..... Plus he did set the ARRC record for most oil changes in a single weekend.

I truly hope to see more cars out next year, during the the year as well as the 09 ARRC. Great show in my opinion,Weekend Registration on Thursday morning brilliant idea......Was one of the highlights of my weekend!!
Great weekend,great workers, good crew,helpful competitors, tremendous track.

David Spillman

[shwah]

hoping that a $10K car can still have a shot of winning races.
I keep hoping that mine can too.

[Knestis]

Kirk's Super Secret Plan

1. Finagle way onto ITAC

2. Manipulate classifications with exquisite subtlety to make ITB the new hotness

3. Get beat enough to remind himself why he's an "enduro specialist"

:)

K

[RSTPerformance]

OK, just wanted to get your attention.

I had resisted the assertion that ITB was the 'new ITA' - but heck, this class is really redifining itself into something special. Accords, Civic's, CRX's, Volvo's, Golfs, 924's, BMW's, Audi's, Preludes, a freakin' gorgeous Alfa...

Awesome guys. Awesome. Add in Scott, The Canadians, the Blethens, Beren, Boo-hee - and oh-snap is that a showdown.

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?


I have been saying this is the class for years, I am glad you are finally coming to a realization!!! add in the MR2's and you have a list of cars that cover every possible way to build a car, (old FWD and RWD tanks to a mid engine sportscars.

Dont forget other oddballs like the Saab (Yeah, Nat Wentworth is faster in the Volvo but he ran in the front with the Saab), the Opal GT (Track record holder at NHIS?), Alfa Spider (still track holder after 12+ years at Lime Rock Park), or the Omni that used to run top 3 at RA a few years ago.

It is unfortunate that the class is getting so old and parts are hard to find. If you can find them then it is generally a very affordable class. The key for the future will be to make correct classifications and add in some new blood that doesn't dominate quite as easily as the Golf III does. If you add in another car that is just barely faster than the Golf III then the class will be done. All of us old cars are pedling as fast as possible and can barely keep up to challenge.

As for a showdown.... what a dream race!!! I wish that we could afford the time off and the tow. Unfortunatly the fall season always seems to get busy with work (its after "summer vacation season") and as I get older I seem to have less money even though I make considerably more, have less bills and still have not made enough to invest "extra" and loose it all in the stock market.

Raymond "914 should be right up there, Mini... hummmm I would also love to..." Blethen

[RSTPerformance]

PS: Its a bunch of crap that Andy and Greg havn't given it a try...

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

PS: Its a bunch of crap that Andy and Greg havn't given it a try...

Raymond

Given what a try? The ARRC? Guilty on my part...Greg? You know better...

Or ITB? Be careful what you wish for!!!

[RSTPerformance]

Given what a try? The ARRC? Guilty on my part...Greg? You know better...

Or ITB? Be careful what you wish for!!!

About 10 of us are wishing, and we are not even close to afraid.... the two of you would take each other out while you think about how they make those dam Volvo's go so fast!!!

Raymond "on behalf of all ITB'ers... bring it" Blethen

[tnord]

I truly hope to see more cars out next year, during the the year as well as the 09 ARRC.

i think you'll have to wait for 2010 for it to turn around.

[shwah]

Or ITB? Be careful what you wish for!!!

You know that you typed that out loud right?:rolleyes:

[924Guy]

Southern California, heart of the mortgage meltdown. I'm even concerned, and haven't been racing while I spend to rebuild.

LOL... welcome to the recession... we've been waiting for you! (Michigan's way ahead of you, been there for YEARS... Ohio too...) ;)

As for the rest on ITB... talk is cheap, lap times aren't... :eclipsee_steering:

[gran racing]

What Andy, is the 1.6 getting move to ITB?

[Andy Bettencourt]

ITB is so diverse, it would be cool to build something for sure...for me, it has to be RWD so the 924 and the MR2 would be the most viable. Wishing there was a Mazda-based choice! We would have a driver in there fo-sho!

Hey Ray-Ray, why don't you try ITA?

[gran racing]

There are Mazda based choices. Mazda 323, 626, and the MX-6. I know, not RWD.

[Andy Bettencourt]

RWD is a deal-breaker for me...spent plenty fo time in FWD racecars in the 90's. I do love V's 924 though!!!

[Greg Amy]

ITB? Be careful what you wish for!!!
+ elevenybillion. :cool:


RWD is a deal-breaker for me...spent plenty fo time in FWD racecars in the 90's.
Learn to road-race front-wheel-drive, autocrosser!!!

[shwah]

Cool. We can debate whether FWD may in fact be an advantage at lower hp levels - low enough that a properly set up car cannot spin the tires unless off the paved surface.

I think it is, especially in terms of corner exit speed.

The MR2 IMO has terrific potential in ITB, the 320 does too, the 318 just proved that it has what it takes, we all know about the Volvo 142, then there are those Porsches. I expect the 924 to keep getting faster, and really look forward to seeing the 914 that will be hitting the track next year. Lots of rwd choices.

However - let's just remember that diversity and good racing at the front does not a healthy class make. ITB is in good shape, don't get me wrong, but go take a look at the top 5 at the runoffs in GP for 05-07. Those were great races from cars spanning 4 decades with front and rear drive, but the class is dead. Point being, we need to aggressively continue to support our IT classes and keep new iron flowing in - without waiting for classification requests.

[924Guy]

RWD is a deal-breaker for me...spent plenty fo time in FWD racecars in the 90's. I do love V's 924 though!!!

You could just buy it, you know... just 'cause I haven't bothered listing it doesn't mean it's not for sale! Was actually planning to post it after the ARRC, but that race has left me with a little unfinished business first... ;)

[Greg Amy]

Cool. We can debate whether FWD may in fact be an advantage at lower hp levels...
+1. And, in fact, Andy and I have, in the context of FWD "subtractors". It's my contention that FWD is an advantage in ITC; probably dead-even in ITB; the subtractor is near-perfect in ITA; but the subtractor is too small in ITS and WAAAYYY too small in ITR.

Yeah, I'm going off on a tangent, but...

There are two primary factors that make this so: marginal weight of the RWD system vs. FWD as a percentage of the car's total weight, and the ability to put power down to the ground. In ITC, the marginal "cost" of a heavier RWD system far exceeds its benefits, and because of the lower power and torque there's less likelihood of breaking traction under power, plus there just not a whole helluva lot of weight transfer (which is one of RWD's primary advantages). I'm sure this would float like a lead balloon, but the FWD "subtractor" in ITC could probably be eliminated.

In ITS and ITR, however, the marginal "cost" of a RWD system is far, far less a factor as a percentage of total weight, and the power available can easily exceed the traction capability of the front wheels (which are now compromising between forward traction and lateral loads). IMO, the "subtractor" for FWD on those two classes should be increased.

Oh, well, back to beating up on ITB...

[Andy Bettencourt]

It would be a good excersize to try and tie some math to the theory. ITA to ITS goes from 50 to 100lbs. ITR need 150lbs? Geez that's a lot...but like you point out, we are talking about cars with pw/weights in the low 11's.

[JeffYoung]

And most of the ITR front drivers are already very light to begin with. You start taking 150 or 200 lbs off of say a Celica GTS and you have what, a 2200 lb car out there running against many cars that weigh 1000 lbs more.

I've seen some very fast Integras in S. I think we wait a bit and see how the FWD R cars do before any changes are made.

[dickita15]

ITB is so diverse, it would be cool to build something for sure...for me, it has to be RWD so the 924 and the MR2 would be the most viable. Wishing there was a Mazda-based choice! We would have a driver in there fo-sho!

Hey Ray-Ray, why don't you try ITA?

Well had you moved the 1st gen RX-7 to ITB...:D

[JoshS]

ITB is so diverse, it would be cool to build something for sure...for me, it has to be RWD so the 924 and the MR2 would be the most viable. Wishing there was a Mazda-based choice! We would have a driver in there fo-sho!

Hey Andy,

The old Raymond/Fletcher/Sirota '85 MR2 is for sale again for a giveaway price. 2-time Solo national champ car, nice and light too. Pretty solid, still street-driven, but needs paint badly.

Come on, you know you want it, you can't turn down a car with a pedigree!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Send me the details>>>>

[CRallo]

continuing the hijack:

possible additional factor(s): does a fwd car tend to have less driveline power loss than a RWD car. Additional friction caused by a larger/longer/heavier would cause this... and a fwd car typically would have less driveline mass also, which would of course have less inertia and therefore provide better accel/decel...

The power numbers are important because flywheel hp numbers are used in the process, while it's wheel hp that actually makes the cars accel. This can be estimated, the effect of the inertial differnces would be harder to quantify...

the other big issue, in my eyes, is that a fast ITR/S fwd car may be able to be fast but can't keep the pace over the length of a full race... this however may be a factor of setup and driving style and how would this be corrected anyways??

[lateapex911]

It would be a good excersize to try and tie some math to the theory. ITA to ITS goes from 50 to 100lbs. ITR need 150lbs? Geez that's a lot...but like you point out, we are talking about cars with pw/weights in the low 11's.

Well, as long as we're doing some blue sky thinking, why not take that 100 pounds assigned to the middle of the bell curve car, back out the percentage, then do the same in ITR, but with a different percentage to equate to 150? That way the light FWD cars get less, heavier ones more.

[Greg Amy]

I think we wait a bit and see how the FWD R cars do before any changes are made.
...sesz the boys that don't race front-wheel-drive cars...

;)


...why not take that 100 pounds assigned to the middle of the bell curve car...
So, effectively, make it a percentage of classified weight instead of a fixed number? That would address it better, though I think you'd want a "weighted formula" to also take into account power.

Alternatively, if you choose to base it on one factor, do it as a percentage of power instead of weight. Power has more of an effect on FWD front tire longevity and corner exit speed than weight alone. Ain't sayin' weight DOESN'T, just not as much as power.

The real limiting factor for lap times in FWD is "can you put that power down through the course of the race?"

[JoshS]

So, effectively, make it a percentage of classified weight instead of a fixed number? That would address it better, though I think you'd want a "weighted formula" to also take into account power.

Alternatively, if you choose to base it on one factor, do it as a percentage of power instead of weight. Power has more of an effect on FWD front tire longevity and corner exit speed than weight alone. Ain't sayin' weight DOESN'T, just not as much as power.

The real limiting factor for lap times in FWD is "can you put that power down through the course of the race?"

Man, you guys like to get complicated.

Let me remind you that all cars in a given class have roughly equivalent power-to-weight ratios. So an adder based on power vs. an adder based on weight is likely to result in basically the same answer for all cars in the same class.

So can't we just use a fixed number and make life simpler? Oh wait ... we already do!

[Greg Amy]

So an adder based on power vs. an adder based on weight is likely to result in basically the same answer for all cars in the same class.
Good point. So, since weight is based on power, ignore weight and adjust the subtractor on power. Same ole.


So can't we just use a fixed number and make life simpler? Oh wait ... we already do!
No, that doesn't follow your point above. If we were to base it on either weight or power, than the numerical subtractor must vary based on that.

A fixed number only works if there's a fixed amount of power or weight for all cars in the class. What you're actually suggesting in this last case is to base the subtractor on the chosen power-to-weight ratio, which is class-specific, not vehicle-specific and thus would not change. Circular logic...

What would be interesting is to know the "baseline" ITB car and its power level, then vary the current-50# subtractor as a function of its power...

[JoshS]

No, that doesn't follow your point above. If we were to base it on either weight or power, than the numerical subtractor must vary based on that.

Good point (back at'cha). But how much do we expect the current 50lbs (or 100lbs) to vary? Because it seems like it would be well within our normal margin of error based on the assumptions in the process ... in which case I still conclude, simplicity is good.

[Greg Amy]

...it seems like it would be well within our normal margin of error based on the assumptions in the process ... in which case I still conclude, simplicity is good.
Could very well be! It would be an interesting arithmetical exercise for someone with all the data...maybe someone that also owns an ITA Miata...hmm....wonder who that could be....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Could very well be! It would be an interesting arithmetical exercise for someone with all the data...maybe someone that also owns an ITA Miata...hmm....wonder who that could be....

Naw...that dude is ghey. :)

[Ed Funk]

Naw...that dude is ghey. :)

:eek:...yeah, and???

[RSTPerformance]

ITB is so diverse, it would be cool to build something for sure...for me, it has to be RWD so the 924 and the MR2 would be the most viable. Wishing there was a Mazda-based choice! We would have a driver in there fo-sho!

Hey Ray-Ray, why don't you try ITA?

I want a chance to win and my girlfriend says that I cant drive a "ghey" car...

Not to mention I think ITB has a lot more realistic competition week to week, although Beran is making it tough... We did have an oportunity to pick up a 2nd gen MR2 for ITA and thought real hard to build it together (Stephen and I) but we just didn't have the $$$ to build it right.

Raymond

[tnord]

....because i'm waiting for the wife to get home.

if you assume that the 50lb FWD weight break is ideal for ITA, and adjust ITS and ITR based on the % weight break given to ITA, well......nothing really happens.

i did this pretty quick, and it might be wrong.

[Knestis]

>> ...The key for the future will be to make correct classifications and add in some new blood that doesn't dominate quite as easily as the Golf III does.

Total BS.

If the car was magic, I'd have been in the top three at the 'festival. Beran and Aaron were up there because they had the right combination of car preparation, tuning, and talent. Bowie won the ARRC in a car that I couldn't get within 2.5 seconds of his qualifying time. He got there by grabbing by the scruff of the neck and wringing the shit out of it.

I daresay that if Vaughn put the time and energy he has into his 924 into an Audi, he'd be right up there.

K

[Greg Amy]

if you assume that the 50lb FWD weight break is ideal for ITA, and adjust ITS and ITR based on the % weight break given to ITA, well......nothing really happens.
Share the process on that exercise?

[shwah]

Valid points Kirk, but the car is light. Not over 100 light we are told, but light. I have seen the car win races against stiff competition and shatter lap records with stock bottom end - granted very well driven, but still. It's light, or other cars are heavy.

[RSTPerformance]

>> ...The key for the future will be to make correct classifications and add in some new blood that doesn't dominate quite as easily as the Golf III does.

Total BS.

I daresay that if Vaughn put the time and energy he has into his 924 into an Audi, he'd be right up there.

K

K-

First, I doubt Vaughn would be faster in the Audi, despite the age of our cars, they are very well developed. The 924 and the Audi are probably a toss up depending on the track. With that said, do I think the Audi or the 924 have a shot at winning on the "right track" against the Golf III, yup. I wont argue that.

However, with a good driver behind the wheel of a developed Golf III it is going to be tough to beat. It is a fast car that is well rounded and strong at most tracks. To me this is the dominant car for the class (Not a runaway that will always win, but will likely hold a lot of track records). I don't think you will find many that will argue against that. The Golf III is clearly not an oddball and is a good benchmark for where the top of the class should be maintained at a max.

Raymond

[tnord]

Share the process on that exercise?

i tried to upload the excel file so everyone can see the formulas behind the numbers, but the site won't let me.

basically i just grabbed a bunch of the popular FWD cars in ITA (ended up being 17 of them), added back 50lbs per car to get their base weights, then devided 850lbs (17 cars by 50lbs each) by the base weight to get a "FWD discount factor" for ITA, since that was thrown out as the ideal % break.

then i took a handful of the popular (and potentially popular) FWD cars in ITS/R, added back 50lbs to each of their min weights to get the base weight, the multiplied by 1-"ideal FWD discount factor" i calculated from the ITA numbers. compare that number to the current min weight, and that's your "delta" column on the far right. in the end it only resulted in a net change of about 10lbs at most.

i went through this not only because i had time on my hands waiting for lindsay to get home, but because i thought it was the proper method. i also thought it would yield a bigger weight reduction than it did.

i think in the end the FWD cars in the faster classes are already at lower weights because their power levels are lower, so the 50lb FWD weight break is still somewhat close to the ideal percentage based on ITA numbers.

my method or calculations certainly could be wrong, as i did it in about 10min. but on the face of it i think it's pretty good.

[gran racing]

K,
The car isn't magic but it most certainly is light and has some other nice advantages. No doubt about it. I had an interesting conversation at the IT Fest with a certain someone and we started talking about the Golf then my Prelude. He asked me what my car weighed and was surprised saying he thought it's kinda heavy. I replied that the Prelude isn't light for the class rather the Golf is light.

I will say that if a decent driver is put in other ITB cars then put in a Golf of similar prep, they'll be faster in the Golf. None of this means that a driver who does well with a Golf isn't talented. Oh, and yes I've certainly given thought to going out and getting a Golf myself but just doesn't work with my current racing budget.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dave - what are the 'nice advantages' of the Golf? The only difference it has in its process weight is a -50lbs for a beam rear IIRC.

[924Guy]

LOL... I think you guys are forgetting that me and my car already have beaten Beran and his Golf... take another look at the IT-Fest results... Or just watch this, starting at about 7:55...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c27uOudCuMo


No, I don't think I could be as fast in an Audi. Certainly not faster...

[gran racing]

Yes, but you're the king of all racers.

[Greg Amy]

my method or calculations certainly could be wrong, as i did it in about 10min. but on the face of it i think it's pretty good.I'm trying to digest it, but I'm still not with you. But, it was a long night...let me chew on it some more.

My ideal mathematical formula would ignore weight and focus instead on power. As Josh pointed out above, since the weights are based on power any calculation based on weight is, effectively, based on power. So, take out the middleman.

Problem is, any formula you come up with, whether based on power directly or inferentially, cannot be applied equally across all classes. The reason for this is that the end calculated performance restrictor, weight, is calculated differently for each class because of different power-to-weight goals. These goals, as I understand it, were not necessarily mathematically derived but were, in effect, chosen out of thin air (granted, with reasonable expectation of performance). Thus, any calculated FWD subtractor has to take these power-to-weight goals into account.

We do this already inferentially with different (reasonably-derived, but still out of thin air) subtractors for ITS and ITR. I'm wondering if we can't do the same thing mathematically, as a function of power and class power-to-weight goal.

Can someone share the PtW goals for each class?


i think in the end the FWD cars in the faster classes are already at lower weights because their power levels are lower, so the 50lb FWD weight break is still somewhat close to the ideal percentage based on ITA numbers.If we were to accept that, then we need to choose the "poster child" FWD car that we believe most accurately displays the performance goals for ITA, and use that as a poster child for back-revving the formulas. Then work forwards from there.

[JLawton]

Dave, Ray,

I'm sure its been discussed previously but I don't remember the outcome. How does the Golf III fit the process (or not fit the process as you guys say)???

Having driven Kirks car, having raced an A1 and a few ITB races under my belt, I'm not seein' it??

With other claims of over dogs, I understand why they are considered that way, but with the Golf III its been more speculation??

[tnord]

I'm trying to digest it, but I'm still not with you. But, it was a long night...let me chew on it some more

basically i took the average % weight break of the popular FWD ITA cars (presumably popular in part because the weights are correct) and applied that percentage to some cars in ITS and ITR.


My ideal mathematical formula would ignore weight and focus instead on power
unless you somehow use P/W and ingore actual power output, you're stepping into a big pile of shit. i can play around with how to apply a P/W ratio, but i think this is pretty tricky given that we're using multiple different units of measurement in the same formula. i'm thinking of coming up with a factor that uses P/W in combination with the base weight before any +/- stuff is tacked on.


If we were to accept that, then we need to choose the "poster child" FWD car that we believe most accurately displays the performance goals for ITA, and use that as a poster child for back-revving the formulas. Then work forwards from there.

disagree. i think you have to use what you think is the "top performing" FWD ITA car. taking the national racing approach, you'd pick the car that performs the best at "the big race," the ARRC. so either the CRX or early Integra. i do recognize the risk of doing this is creeping performance of the class upwards, since you're starting with the top performer as the baseline, and any +/- error could produce an end product beyond what currently exists. of course if you start with the baseline, the +/- could yield an uncompetitive end product also.

[Knestis]

Valid points Kirk, but the car is light. Not over 100 light we are told, but light. I have seen the car win races against stiff competition and shatter lap records with stock bottom end - granted very well driven, but still. It's light, or other cars are heavy.

I'm on record as agreeing with you. But I will not - EVER - get sucked into "that car beats me so it must be wrong" conversations.

Two separate issues.

K

[Knestis]

...To me this is the dominant car for the class (Not a runaway that will always win, but will likely hold a lot of track records). I don't think you will find many that will argue against that. The Golf III is clearly not an oddball and is a good benchmark for where the top of the class should be maintained at a max.

Raymond

...and to continue to try to make this point, you're making an assertion based on a TINY amount of data. It doesn't hold and it would be VERY dangerous for the ITAC to make classification/specification decisions based on that approach.

AND YET AGAIN, so nobody's got any room to make suggestions of bias - I PERSONALLY agree that, based on what I understand of the specification system, that the MkIII Golf is something like 50-80 pounds too light. That's compared to the process weight (as I recall, too rushed this morning to dig out the spreadsheet), not to other cars in the class that might be at different places relative to that same index.

K

[Greg Amy]

...unless you somehow use P/W and ingore actual power output, you're stepping into a big pile of shit. ...
Do you mean the P/W goals of the class, or the actual P/W of the classified car, post-calc? If you mean the former, that's what I described above; if you mean the latter then you're getting into circular logic where functions cancel each other out. In other words, for the P/W formula (the calc'd weight pre-subtractors/adders), the W is determined as a function of the P within a specific class ratio (e.g., simplistically said, class goal is 13:1 P/W, car's power is P, ergo car's weight is 13P).

If you base the subtractor on the actual P/W of the car after calculation, you're assuming that car is: first, at the actual, detailed P/W goal, and if it isn't you then add in additional error to the subsequent calcs; and second, you're basing it on a calculated formula that already takes into account power, weight, and class P/W ratio, thus will be redundant. Why not simply remove all the fuzziness in the middle that's going to cancel out anyway, and use the two base factors you have access to, power and class P/W ratio goal?


i'm thinking of coming up with a factor that uses P/W in combination with the base weight before any +/- stuff is tacked on.Again, since that base weight is determined by those two factors (power and class goal P/W ratio) there's no reason to worry about classified weight: it's already in there (because weight is already based on power and P/W goals). To do it with the post-calc weight adds in not only unnecessary complexity but ratio error as well.

Let's see if we can't get these goal P/W ratios and do it both ways, see what we come up with. Andy? Jake? Kirk? Jeff? Anybody?


i think you have to use what you think is the "top performing" FWD ITA car...i do recognize the risk of doing this is creeping performance of the class upwards...Exactly on the latter point, which is why I hesitate to use the top dog. If we use the baseline dog, then we can always adjust through the range. I guess the answer to that is whether we'd prefer to risk bringing underlyers up, or top-enders down, and that's more a philosophical/category intent decision than a mathematical one.

[RSTPerformance]

K-

I am not even trying to get into the argument that everyone gives Andy about the Miata in ITA or we used to have about the BMW in ITS... All I am saying is that it is a good benchmark not to exceed with any new cars classed in ITB. IF we were to classify a car say 50 - 100lbs light as compaired to a Golf III then I think we might start the slippery slope ITA did back 10 or so years ago where you now have a ton of cars classified that could never compete at the front even though they once did win reguarly.

I thnk that the Golf III is a nonquestionable smart move for anyone looking to build a car for the front of ITB. I also think that the Audi Coupe, Porche 924, BMW 2002, Volvo 142, Honda Accord, and CRX are also strong choices if you have knowledge about the car and parts sources. I am also very interested in the Toyota MR2, Porche 914, and the Mini. Would I build a Rabbit, Schirocco, Dodge Daytona, Opal Manta or Ford Mustang? NO, not if I wanted to win.

I don't see how you can argue that the Golf III isn't at what should be the absolute max performance basis for the class... (again I am not arguing that other oddball OLD cars are not also near or at that same level).

Raymond

[Knestis]

...I will say that if a decent driver is put in other ITB cars then put in a Golf of similar prep, they'll be faster in the Golf. ...

...and finally - I'll bite: Cite the data behind your assertion.

I'll remind you that you've got three variables in the hypothesis I've quoted above - "driver decency" (we'll assume you mean talent rather than morals - hee, hee); "preparation level," and car make/model (Golf, non-Golf). EDIT - and the ex-science teacher in me has to remind you that by any fundamental application of this process, your comparisons must hold TWO of those variables constant, while examining the influence on outcomes (speed, lap times, finishing position, competitiveness, whatever) of the third.

Show your work. :)

K

[Knestis]

...I don't see how you can argue that the Golf III isn't at what should be the absolute max performance basis for the class... (again I am not arguing that other oddball OLD cars are not also near or at that same level).

Raymond

For the gazionth time: Your fundamental approach is flawed. You are looking at on-track performance, in your little patch, based on your limited experience, and a complete lack of real data.

(To be fair, there's very little chance that there is a way to GET the data that a reasonable application of this thinking would require, so you're not to blame.)

PLEASE trust me when I tell you that you do NOT want the ITAC to make decisions about what cars should weigh based on that kind of approach.

The "maximum performance basis" (and that's not a bad choice of language, right there) is the process that says, "We have these input variables, we do this with them, and we get this output variable: The only one that the rules allow us to manipulate - WEIGHT..."

K

[tnord]

Do you mean the P/W goals of the class, or the actual P/W of the classified car, post-calc? If you mean the former, that's what I described above; if you mean the latter then you're getting into circular logic where functions cancel each other out.

yeah i meant the former.


If you base the subtractor on the actual P/W of the car after calculation, you're assuming that car is: first, at the actual, detailed P/W goal, and if it isn't you then add in additional error to the subsequent calcs; and second, you're basing it on a calculated formula that already takes into account power, weight, and class P/W ratio, thus will be redundant.

yeah, that's part of the big pile of shit i mentioned above. not to mention you're amplifying any problems with the car not being able to achieve actual power to match process power.


Again, since that base weight is determined by those two factors (power and class goal P/W ratio) there's no reason to worry about classified weight: it's already in there (because weight is already based on power and P/W goals). To do it with the post-calc weight adds in not only unnecessary complexity but ratio error as well.

i sortof follow you on this. what i'm getting at is that i would want to come up with some *factor* that is determined by using the P/W target of the class. then if 50lbs for ITA is determined to be the ideal weight break, then you should take that *factor* multiplied by 50lbs to come up with your new weight break for ITS, and ITR. oh, and by the way, it's only fair if you ADD WEIGHT to the FWD ITB/ITC cars also, since the 50lbs given to them is too much.

i also would want to make sure to use the "base weight" of the car whenever possible before any +/- for solid axle, double-A suspension, FWD, etc is included. this is to ensure that a car that looks like shit on paper with FWD, mcpherson strut, and a solid rear axle doesn't get it's weight whittled down to being an overdog. if you determined this new *factor* using the currently classified weight, you run the risk of giving it too big of a weight break because you're essentially double-counting the other considerations.

[RSTPerformance]

For the gazionth time: Your fundamental approach is flawed. You are looking at on-track performance, in your little patch, based on your limited experience, and a complete lack of real data.

(To be fair, there's very little chance that there is a way to GET the data that a reasonable application of this thinking would require, so you're not to blame.)

PLEASE trust me when I tell you that you do NOT want the ITAC to make decisions about what cars should weigh based on that kind of approach.

The "maximum performance basis" (and that's not a bad choice of language, right there) is the process that says, "We have these input variables, we do this with them, and we get this output variable: The only one that the rules allow us to manipulate - WEIGHT..."

K


K-

I wouldn't say that I live in a little patch, or that I have limited experience, or that we don't have any real data. Sure my patch is East coast, and my experience does not include the ITAC and no data exists as it would in a "Pro Racing" world but we can be realistic...

Name one track where the Golf III has not been able to compete at the front.

and I am not suggesting that the ITAC use some other approach for classifying cars, they have done a great job including fitting in prior ITA cars as well as the Golf III. I just think the we 9the club) just needs to be careful not to shed a few pounds each year on new classifications.

Raymond

[gran racing]

But I will not - EVER - get sucked into "that car beats me so it must be wrong" conversations.

Agreed.


...and finally - I'll bite: Cite the data behind your assertion.

Isn't the same reason you believe this?


PERSONALLY agree that, based on what I understand of the specification system, that the MkIII Golf is something like 50-80 pounds too light.

I'll post more later but basically the 122 lbs of torque, brake size, and stock HP the Golf III has is primarily why I believe it's classed too light.

[tnord]

Name one track where the Golf III has not been able to compete at the front.


now wait just a second. i thought that was the point? i don't know of a single car in a single class in IT that i'd say "nope, no shot in hell that thing can be up front." and now you're using this as a negative against it?

if the situation were reversed, and there was a track that your car couldn't be competitive at, you'd be screaming to take weight off of it.

[Knestis]

...I'll post more later but basically the 122 lbs of torque, brake size, and stock HP the Golf III has is primarily why I believe it's classed too light.

The formula agrees with you, as far as that goes (and so do I...!) but you've changed the question by citing variables that we DO consider, rather than those we don't. And shouldn't.

If one driver with 20 years of experience had spent 4 years developing (say) an Opel Manta, then put a similar effort into a Mazda 626, he/she would be in a position to say, "my lap times at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway make me confident that the 626 is a faster car, at their current weights." That's controlling for two variables (driver, preparation) while looking at the influence of the third - model at a particular weight.

Kirk (who thinks it's pretty funny that he's spent so much time trying to convince the system to add weight to his own race car.

:026:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ray,

It ain't about the car. What you are seeing locally is a top driver in a top car. Look what happened at the test day when Eric got in his dad's Volvo...it's a combination of the two. IIRC, you guys have never even been to the dyno with your Audi's. Is that still true?

At the MOST, the Golf III is 50lbs light...and that is if you don't think a beam rear axle is worse than an independent rear. Remember, the process assumes the base car is a RWD, strut-based, inderpendent suspension'd car. Adders and subtractors from there...the two most common being 'minus' for FWD and 'plus' for double wishbone.

[dazzlesa]

I would look at berans car if ITB did not run with ITS. being a 2nd or third class citizen in a race group stinks. the one thing the golf has is power. very hard to out drive or out handle horsepower.
2nd is that it is late model compared to some of the relics we run.

[lateapex911]

I would look at berans car if ITB did not run with ITS. being a 2nd or third class citizen in a race group stinks. the one thing the golf has is power. very hard to out drive or out handle horsepower.
2nd is that it is late model compared to some of the relics we run.

OK, I'm confused. You have a top notch ITA car, one that's won lots of BIG marbles, if I'm not mistaken, and an ITB car. You run the ITB car from what I've seen, yet you don't like the run group?

I'm sure there's more to the story....but I've always wondered why the A car never is seen these days.

[Knestis]

...the one thing the golf has is power. very hard to out drive or out handle horsepower. ...

If I were inclined to make comparisons, I'd say that the Accord has more based on where I watched Deuce K. drive off into the distance at the SIC. But I know that my perceptions are potentially biased, that the sample size is ridiculously small, and that even if it was "evident" that he was beating me in a straight line, that's not anything like enough information on which to base specification decisions.

Again - do you all REALLY want a system where someone like me comes back to a committee discussion, allowed to inject my perceptions (by calling them "data"), potentially influencing the weight of your cars? REALLY...? Because that's what you're doing.

K

[924Guy]

If I were inclined to make comparisons, I'd say that the Accord has more based on where I watched Deuce K. drive off into the distance at the SIC. But I know that my perceptions are potentially biased, that the sample size is ridiculously small, and that even if it was "evident" that he was beating me in a straight line, that's not anything like enough information on which to base specification decisions.

Again - do you all REALLY want a system where someone like me comes back to a committee discussion, allowed to inject my perceptions (by calling them "data"), potentially influencing the weight of your cars? REALLY...? Because that's what you're doing.

K

I can only watch the net result of power/weight, on track, but having chased Beran, Peter, and Deuce... if anything, I'd DEFINITELY say Beran has better power/weight. This despite the crappy aero/top end vs. the Hondas (which are slightly better above 90-100mph IMO).

Despite the fact that none of them can get off the corners. ;)

Anyone else out there have any more data than me? :eclipsee_steering:

[dazzlesa]

looong story with the A car. the integra's motor is broken in and it should be seen next season.
ITB is a great class and is easier on the wallet. just comenting that running with ITS is a down side to the class in the north east.
re the golf i was pointing out the good points of the car, not trying to get adjustments made to it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey boys, this is Improved Touring. All the cars are different. Some cars HAVE TO out-handle and out-brake that 'horsepower'. It's what makes the class diverse, interesting and popular.

I contend that the Golf III is SPOT ON per the process. Maybe the latest developmental dollars are just headed to newer machines as Rick eluded too.

AND - the fact that ITB does run with ITS here in the NE, DOES influence decisions of what class to pick.

[RSTPerformance]

Hey boys, this is Improved Touring. All the cars are different. Some cars HAVE TO out-handle and out-brake that 'horsepower'. It's what makes the class diverse, interesting and popular.

I think when you look at ITB you see that SCCA has done the best (when compaired to any class in any road racing series) at making a diverse and competitive class... ITA is a close second IMO.


I contend that the Golf III is SPOT ON per the process. Maybe the latest developmental dollars are just headed to newer machines as Rick eluded too.

Rick has stated a good point... I think that we can respectfully disagree with the car being classed spot on however run all the cars in the front through the same process (my understanding is that this has not been done) and prove it. Andy and K, without looking into the GCR could you run rough numbers on the cars we have discussed here as being at the front of the pack and report back what weights you come up with? My understanding is that if it is +/- 50 lbs not much will be done, however in reality that is a 100lb difference.


AND - the fact that ITB does run with ITS here in the NE, DOES influence decisions of what class to pick.

I think that is why Dad built the Porche... because he couldn't beat us in another ITB car!!! :D (Dad I know your reading this, next year the Blethen race is on!!!)

Raymond

[Dave Zaslow]

Since we should not really look at single race results I decided to look at series championships to see if there is an ITB overdog. Take a look below and feel free to correct what you see here if you know differently. No names are reported as thy are irrelevant (except for one person I cannot match to a car).

NARRC 2008 Final ITB

Volvo 142 / VW Golf 3 ;-)
BMW 2002
Honda Civic
Honda Civic
VW Golf 3
Volvo 142
VW Golf 3 / Audi Coupe
VW Golf 2
VW Golf 2
VW Golf 3

MARRS 2008 Final ITB

BMW 2002
Alfa GTV
BMW 2002
BMW 2002
Volvo 142E
BMW 2002
Volvo 242
VW Rabbit GTI
Honda CRX Si
Plymouth Arrow

SARRC 2008 Final ITB

Toyota Celica
VW Golf 3
Volvo 142
Honda CRX Si
VW Rabbit GTI
Honda Accord
NORMAN FULLER ????
VW GTI
VW GTI
VW Golf

If anyone has other series or regional championships to report, please do.

Here is a helpful place to go to review results of all SCCA regional races (required to be submitted for 2008)

[gran racing]

Dave, you just make Kirk get an ulser. :) We simply can't use results to determine if a make / model is an overdog or not. My beliefs about the Golf III are not because of that.

The challenge with the Golf is not only does it have the power, it also handles extremely well. Maybe part of the issue is the process doesn't take into consideration torque enough? Compared to its counterparts in ITB, the Golf has bigger brakes, more baseline HP, and more torque. Yeah, the rear suspension is "worse" but the fwd cars are just dragging that end along for the ride. I'm sorry Andy, but you're just not going to convince me that it's not 75 lbs light. It makes it even tougher for me to swallow when other Golf III owners such as Kirk agree that the weight relative to other ITB cars is off, not to mention many other knowledgeable individuals. For the record, I did not bring up the Golf's weight in this thread. LOL

But you know what, you now think it's spot on so it probably won't get corrected. Again, maybe there's a flaw in the process being used and it does truly fit the results of other ITB cars. Just like how cars have been classed in the past, I'm sure this process will be tweeked along the way.

Like Ray mentioned, I am concerned about the Golf III becoming the new ITB benchmark and worry about what happened in ITA ala CRX / Integra happening in ITB. I know, I know. The "process" won't allow that. We'll see.

[RSTPerformance]

Dave certainly interesting.... The BMW 2002's are also one of those top dogs that I think can beat anything that shows up.

Do we have a database with the track records? Although this also probably would not support our thoughts that the GOLF III is the car to have!!! lol

NHMS: Opal GT?
Lime Rock: Alfa Spyder
Pocono: Audi Coupe
Watkins Glenn: Golf III
NJMP Lightning: Golf III
Road Atlanta: Golf III
Mid Ohio: Porche 924
Nelson Ledges: ?
Summit Point: ?
Beaver Run: ?

[JeffYoung]

Do you guys think that 50 to 75 lbs makes a difference -- more so than driver -- between winning and 2nd place?

Do you think that in the IT milieu that we should have "management" concerned about 50/75/100 lb weight "inaccuracies?"

My answers: No and no.

[lateapex911]

Yup, even IF a car is 50 or 100 light, we (the ITAC) can't do anything about it. And the same goes if a car is 50 or 100 heavy. To my eyes, that means there's a theoretical delta of 198 between models. That restriction on noodling with weights is great for stability, unless you run a car that's 99 pounds heavy, and race against a guy who is equally prepped, and drives equally well, but is 99 pounds light.

When we have weights under 2000 pounds in ITB and ITC, that 198 pound delta equates to over 10% difference. I think that's significant. And I'm not a fan of it.

As they say, write your congressman.....

* And Jeff, yes, I DO think significant weight differences make a difference, when equal shoes and equal prep is in the equation. I just got done watching Tim Klavana's video of him spinning on the first lap at NJMP (In the NE section), and watched his drive up through the ranks, and yeah, I was a little surprised at some of the stuff I saw. Miatas..the easiest car in SCCA to drive.... missing turn in by 2 feet, the apex by 2 feet and track out by 2 feet, then the immediately following turn in, apex and track out by 2 feet. SHEESH! THREE hundred pounds wouldn't help that, LOL. But, that's not the concern. I think we need to get them spot on on paper, and let the chips fall where they may on the track.

[lateapex911]

Since we should not really look at single race results I decided to look at series championships to see ...........

What Dave, "I wrote the book" Gran said...

I see the angle here, Dave, looking at large groups of data to toss out the outlier bad bits of data, but....

Series championships are often won by cars that never win a race, they just show up more, finishing 2nd or 3rd every time, or play the points game, going to the unpopular tracks for the extra bonus points. OR, the series results can demonstrate the same issues that individual race results can, comparing dissimilar programs. A series can be won by guys with the budgets to be on fresh rubber, or recover more quickly when things go wrong, when their superior competition misses a race due to budgetary issues in replacing the blown equipment.

They also reflect our typical habit of being copy cats, where we see the other guy winning in a Borgward, so WE get a Borgward, not knowing that there might be better choices around. Who knows, maybe some guy from the Ice Region could take his '97 Ascari Dingbot down to the Lava Region and slap those 10 guys around who all think the '78 Borgward is the pinnacle of ITB.

(Of course, they'd either assume he was a cheatin' bastard, or they'd all run out and get themselves Ascari's the next year...)

Point being that even large samples don't always tell the truth in things such as this.

[JeffYoung]

Jake, I of course agree, significant weight makes a difference.

My point -- and it has of course been debated before -- is (a) how much weight makes a difference and (b) given that, at what point should the ITAC be worried that a car is, for whatever reason, off.

[Greg Amy]

...(a) how much weight makes a difference and (b) given that, at what point should the ITAC be worried that a car is, for whatever reason, off.
A) One pound makes a difference.

B) Identical to the amount they think is "acceptable" to run under classified weight.

Remember, if we start playing this game of "good enough" - or worse, supporting or codifying the attitude of "well, it doesn't make a performance difference" - that that game extends far beyond the ITAC's actions, actions which set the tone for everything following.

You're either legal, or you're not. You're either accurate, or you're not.

[seckerich]

If you are talking a 3000 pound car 50 - 100# is not a big deal. Do that to a 2000# car and it is big. Comes down to the percentage difference overall and it is worth getting right. The Gulf is another one of those cars that get high torque overlooked because we only use hp. Instead of using a set number for FWD adder use a percentage of classed weight. In ITC it is probably %1.5, ITA 2.0%, ITS 4%, and ITR about 5%. Equates to anywhere from 35-150 pounds across the spread and takes power into the equation by the classified weight before adders and subtractors. I drive a rear drive and think the front drive cars need more help. The tires are just not up to the task by the end of the race and it just gets worse as they get heavier.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm sorry Andy, but you're just not going to convince me that it's not 75 lbs light.

Show me your math and reasoning that gets you to 75lbs.

[Knestis]

Dave, you just make Kirk get an ulser. :) We simply can't use results to determine if a make / model is an overdog or not. My beliefs about the Golf III are not because of that.

The lap record at Summit is held by a Suzuki Swift. THAT'S the hot ticket. :smilie_pokal:


The challenge with the Golf is not only does it have the power, it also handles extremely well. Maybe part of the issue is the process doesn't take into consideration torque enough? Compared to its counterparts in ITB, the Golf has bigger brakes, more baseline HP, and more torque. Yeah, the rear suspension is "worse" but the fwd cars are just dragging that end along for the ride. I'm sorry Andy, but you're just not going to convince me that it's not 75 lbs light. It makes it even tougher for me to swallow when other Golf III owners such as Kirk agree that the weight relative to other ITB cars is off, not to mention many other knowledgeable individuals. For the record, I did not bring up the Golf's weight in this thread. LOL

LOL - Yeah, that strut front end is pretty much regarded as state-of-the art. You've never actually DRIVEN one, have you? My car is GREAT in big fast corners but sucks in anything that changes direction more than 90*. I'll grant you the brakes but I don't think there's an ITB car out there that's brake-limited in sprint races. I WILL agree - and it's been a topic of ITAC conversations - that we don't consider torque to the degree that maybe we should. I've been asking for someone more clever than I am - anyone - to help me understand how we might do that.


But you know what, you now think it's spot on so it probably won't get corrected. Again, maybe there's a flaw in the process being used and it does truly fit the results of other ITB cars. Just like how cars have been classed in the past, I'm sure this process will be tweeked along the way.

Read what Jake wrote carefully: There's a world of difference between "spot on" and what's within the operating tolerances applied. ...

K

[Knestis]

Dave certainly interesting.... The BMW 2002's are also one of those top dogs that I think can beat anything that shows up.

Do we have a database with the track records? Although this also probably would not support our thoughts that the GOLF III is the car to have!!! lol ...

Track records are particularly suspect, in my opinion. They are just one TINY little datum and there's absolutely NO guarantee that those numbers were generated by a legal car.

K

[Knestis]

Do you guys think that 50 to 75 lbs makes a difference -- more so than driver -- between winning and 2nd place?

Do you think that in the IT milieu that we should have "management" concerned about 50/75/100 lb weight "inaccuracies?"

My answers: No and no.

I'll be careful how I answer this, to be as clear as possible...

** Do think that, in absolute terms, 75 pounds makes a theoretically measurable difference in lap time for a car with ITB-like performance? Yes. No question.

** Do I think that for the "milieu," that is a repeatable difference that will stand out among the typical variability due to other factors? No.

** Do I think that management (the ITAC or more generally, the membership) should care about 50-100 pound weight differences? It depends what the question is.

- If we are asking if we're smart enough to actually "know" enough to make subjective decisions about setting weights? Hell, no.

- If we are applying a formulaic process from scratch, say for a new listing? Hell, yes - since there's no cost associated with "getting it right."

- If we are asked to change a car for which a weight specification as already been set? Hmm. I can see some shades of gray here, and this is the place where we currently have the biggest challenges. There are going to be SOME costs associated with any change, even if it's just angst. I personally think that can be mitigated through a repeatable, transparent process.

K

[Ed Funk]

A)



You're either legal, or you're not. You're either accurate, or you're not.

Tough to argue with Greg! ?Captain of the debate team?

[lateapex911]

Thanks Ed, just what we need, more tGA worship!

:shrug:
:rolleyes:

[Ed Funk]

Worship?? Hell, I'm not good enough to kiss the ground he walks on!:cool: I'd like him to have my baby!:D Oh! Maybe not, she's 30!:happy204:

[Greg Amy]

Thanks Ed, just what we need, more tGA worship!
Methinks Mr. Ed was being "sarcastic"... :)


If you are talking a 3000 pound car 50 - 100# is not a big deal.
For those of you in the "50 pounds is not a big deal" mindset, let me ask you this:

Let's say you had just gotten done with a hard-fought tooth-and-nail battle with someone and you lost, but when they went across the scales Tech found them 5 pounds light. But, Tech decides that they're not going to do anything about it because "5 pounds is not a big deal".

How would you feel about that? Would you agree with Tech and say "you know, you're right, let's just forget about it"? Or would you believe you'd been robbed of a win because that 5 pounds "could have" made a difference?

What if it was 10 pounds? 25? 50? 100? At what point are you satisfied to get beat by someone running lighter than they're supposed to? Does it make you less happy that it's a smaller percentage of your car's weight, versus a hard number like 5 pounds (i.e., are you less unhappy if that happened in ITR versus ITC?)

"Well, that's not going to happen!" you say. "That's against the rules!" Sure it is. But does it make you feel any better when the rules are adjusted such that you have to weigh 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 pounds more than the "process weight" as compared to your competitor's car, when their car went through the same process as you did?

Really, legal or illegal, what's the difference in the end result?

The point I'm trying to make is that it's real nice and easy when you're sitting on an ivory tower making the rules, and you see no problem waving away pounds as applied to someone else. But it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish when you're on the losing end of that 5 pounds... Waving the backs of our hands at a 5 pound discrepancy in process weight is no different than ignoring a competitor running 5 pounds lighter than the classified weight.

In the end, it's all the same.

Just sayin'.

[Ed Funk]

Post #97--not sarcastic.
Post #99--sarcastic.

[Knestis]

I think Greg makes a great point: It's asinine to use different tolerances for different aspects of our rules - assuming that we believe that any of them make any difference, and think it's a good idea to follow them.

K

[JeffYoung]

While I understand the "one pound makes a difference" thinking, and agree with it, the tech shed underweight v. "fuzziness" in the car weight classification are two completely different things.

One is an absolute. A rule has been set and we all have to follow it. Failure to meet that rule, and run 5 lbs under, is objective, measurable and a bright line.

The second, given the way we classify cars, is very different. Because we are trying to classify a variety of makes with very different attributes, and trying in a very rough way to balance them by giving subjective weight adders/subtractors to them, there is no way to be 100% "accurate." Someone is going to think a car should get 50 lbs for torque, someone else 100. Ditto for beam axles, live rears, drums, etc. etc. etc.

The current FWD weight subtraction debate is a prime example of that.

In this milieu, as Kirk points out, there is no bright line of "right and wrong." And that brings me back full circle to my original question (although I am certainly not the first to raise it): how much "wrong" - or perhaps more accurately, disagreement -- do we tolerate in the subjective factors of the process?

[shwah]

I'm on record as agreeing with you. But I will not - EVER - get sucked into "that car beats me so it must be wrong" conversations.

Two separate issues.

K
Agreed. Comments like that don't fly.

[dazzlesa]

just for examples.
i have run a 2130 lb civic, a 2480 lb integra and a 2595 lb integra.
weight makes a huge difference. tires, brakes, acceleration, consistancy. please be as accurate as you can be. as greg said if we have to be a certain weight than make the effort to get the weights correct for everyone in the book. if we can fudge 50 lbs then give it and i will take it out in a heart beat. i have watched my videos and seen lighter cars creep away as the race has gone on. why i should carry anything that i do not have to.
remember the economy is suffering:(. lets cut back the extra weight when we can.

[shwah]

I contend that the Golf III is SPOT ON per the process. Maybe the latest developmental dollars are just headed to newer machines as Rick eluded too.

I fell for this one before Andy. You actually stated earlier in this thread that it is closer to 50# under, as have others.

To be clear, this is not an issue that I have with the Golf III, it is an issue with not classing cars at their spec weight. That car is 50 light, my car is 80 heavy (or 100 if you look at where the Mazda Protege would have landed in ITB), so you get a bigger differential than the arbitrarily selected 100# window of the process. It happens in every IT class, this particular case is just getting more attention right now.

To Vaughan's comment on which is faster - The Honda pulled me better, but on a different straght. The Golf III is saddled with less ideal gearing. Your car definitely has the most pull on the 2nd half of the straight.

Whether anything changes or not, we will develop our car and driver more and find a way to the front. After all it is IT and we chose what we race with open eyes.:eclipsee_steering:

[JeffYoung]

Rick, I agree, accurate as we can be.

So how accurate do we NEED to be? What's the appropriate subtractor for FWD? 50 lbs? 100 lbs? How about a live rear? Doesn't the live rear "hurt more" as torque goes up? How about rear drums? Don't they "hurt more" as speed potential goes up?

Lots of subjectivity in there. In my view, it's asking the ITAC to do the impossible if we start arguing over whether a 50 lb subjective adder v. a 100 lb one is accurate.

[shwah]

Yup, even IF a car is 50 or 100 light, we (the ITAC) can't do anything about it. And the same goes if a car is 50 or 100 heavy. To my eyes, that means there's a theoretical delta of 198 between models. That restriction on noodling with weights is great for stability, unless you run a car that's 99 pounds heavy, and race against a guy who is equally prepped, and drives equally well, but is 99 pounds light.

When we have weights under 2000 pounds in ITB and ITC, that 198 pound delta equates to over 10% difference. I think that's significant. And I'm not a fan of it.

As they say, write your congressman.....

* And Jeff, yes, I DO think significant weight differences make a difference, when equal shoes and equal prep is in the equation. I just got done watching Tim Klavana's video of him spinning on the first lap at NJMP (In the NE section), and watched his drive up through the ranks, and yeah, I was a little surprised at some of the stuff I saw. Miatas..the easiest car in SCCA to drive.... missing turn in by 2 feet, the apex by 2 feet and track out by 2 feet, then the immediately following turn in, apex and track out by 2 feet. SHEESH! THREE hundred pounds wouldn't help that, LOL. But, that's not the concern. I think we need to get them spot on on paper, and let the chips fall where they may on the track.

To be clear, I don't want to see 'noodling with weights'. I want to see cars classed properly and consistently, and ones that were not in the past corrected as such. No way no how we should be having this discussion every year based on who was fast.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I fell for this one before Andy. You actually stated earlier in this thread that it is closer to 50# under, as have others.



Not sure I said that I think it is 50#'s under, probably Kirk. I think it's spot on because there is -50 for a beam.

[dazzlesa]

i agree 100% that the cars will never be equal. we do not want a spec class and there are to many variables to factor in. if we are asked to put lead in our car to make a certain weight than we should get it as acurate as possible. fudging 50lbs here and there is not right.

[Knestis]

It depends how you define "right" and "wrong," Jeff. But then, I'm one of those scary moral relativists that you read about... :)

I'm actually going to make a semantic difference between "right" and "Right." The latter represents some absolute Truth, where we have magically divined a race weight that is absolutely, 100% fair, such that all IT make/model examples have exactly the same chance of winning.

Proposition: We are NEVER going to achieve that.

You are arguing a point of view shared by some on the ITAC - that because we'll never be Right, we should settle for, "eh, whatever." (EDIT - that might be perceived as pejorative. Call it "settle for 100 pounds.") However, I think that's missing the point because (a) Right IS in fact not going to happen, (b) the idea of "letting perfect stand in the way of better" seems terribly wasteful to me, and (c) that whole perspective requires that we assume we are actually TRYING to accomplish that. I argue that we are not even TRYING for Right. (Some might think so; they are wrong.)

We are in fact shooting for "right" - which I would like to see defined as "repeatable, transparent, as-objective-as-possible weights." The goal is, accepting that they'll never be Right, to get car specification weights as reasonably close to that as possible but in a way that decreases the organizational costs of farting around with things. A weight is right when...

** It was arrived at in a way that everyone can see

** Done again - absent any new information - the system will produce the same weight outcome

I firmly believe that right is pretty much always going to be close enough that - as you (Jeff) quite correctly point out - the amount a car is "off" (the delta between right and Right) contributes little enough to real world competitiveness that it gets lost as noise. Frankly, I don't believe that's a very small window to hit.

In short, the argument that we can't be "accurate" makes the most compelling argument for being "consistent."

Because we CAN do the math to the pound, we SHOULD do the math to the pound. And to be VERY clear here, I am most assuredly NOT suggesting that...

** We should give cars more weight because make/model cases appear to be faster or more competitive

** We should entertain request after request to adjust by fiddly little pounds (once the system has been done, repeatability says the result will be the same)

Finally, another AMAZINGLY disingenuous position that I've seen in these discussions comes from the guy who on the one hand says, "we're fooling ourselves if we think a formula is going to be within 100 pounds of Right, so there's no use diddling with any that are more than that far off" but on the other says, "I know a guy who builds some of the best engines for Borgwards. I KNOW from him how much power they make, so I KNOW that car should be 100 pounds heavier than the formula says."

Bull biscuits.

K

[Knestis]

>> ...it's asking the ITAC to do the impossible if we start arguing over whether a 50 lb subjective adder v. a 100 lb one is accurate.

Which is why one of the most productive suggestions to come out of recent conversations has been a percentage instead. I think.

K

[JeffYoung]

Actually, that is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. "Accurate" -- the capitalized one -- is not possible. But "accurate" in the sense that we try to apply the subjective factors within the process as consistently as possible in as objective a way as possible (with things like on track performce being immediately discarded), that we have to do.

What we will never get rid of, though, are the discussions/disagreements over how to apply the subjective factors. That's not a "whatever" to me. But it just means that a bright line/this weight is "Right" and that weight is "Wrong" just isn't possible, because you may think a motor can make 35% gain over stock while I think 25%, or someone else may think your beam axle really isn't a 50 lb detriment and you may disagree, etc.

The above is a great statement on how the system should work. We will never, however, get past the "arguments" over what the subjective factors should be. There is no "Right" there either.

[Knestis]

Not sure I said that I think it is 50#'s under, probably Kirk. I think it's spot on because there is -50 for a beam.

The MkIII got spec'd pre-Kirk but when the requests to revisit it came in, I don't recall any subtractor for the rear beam. Jake? Josh? Anyone? If there was, it didn't make it into the record.

Besides - the other Golfs would get the same adjustment and I *think* it's pretty safe to bet that Chris's math is relative to the MkII.

:shrug: <--- Confused

K

[Knestis]

Actually, that is EXACTLY the point I am trying to make. "Accurate" -- the capitalized one -- is not possible. But "accurate" in the sense that we try to apply the subjective factors within the process as consistently as possible in as objective a way as possible (with things like on track performce being immediately discarded), that we have to do.

What we will never get rid of, though, are the discussions/disagreements over how to apply the subjective factors. That's not a "whatever" to me. But it just means that a bright line/this weight is "Right" and that weight is "Wrong" just isn't possible, because you may think a motor can make 35% gain over stock while I think 25%, or someone else may think your beam axle really isn't a 50 lb detriment and you may disagree, etc.

The above is a great statement on how the system should work. We will never, however, get past the "arguments" over what the subjective factors should be. There is no "Right" there either.

We are in 100% agreement, then - it sounds like, anyway.

On the "arguing over the subjective factors...?" THAT'S where I get to the point of invoking what Andy is fond of saying - "it is what it is." Again, because I think that the individual factors within the "formula" contribute so little, I'm pretty much a fan of "set and forget" where those factors are concerned.

We write them down, establish the process, and go racing.

K

[JeffYoung]

Yes, we agree. And so I'm clear, cause I'm often not..lol..., I think disagreements over the subjective factors are healthy and necessary. They are part of "right" -- they ensure that we debate and discuss them in an attempt to get them as close to accurate as possible.

But they will invariably end up with some folks thinking a car is light, and another is heavy. And that certainly "is what it is."

[shwah]

Not sure I said that I think it is 50#'s under, probably Kirk. I think it's spot on because there is -50 for a beam.

Your right Andy. I mis-read your post mentioning the -50 for the rear beam. Sorry about that.

At the end of the day, the Golf III and Golf II are the same car in terms of chassis. If the Golf III is spot on then the Golf II should be speced at 2145 (20.4lb/stock hp). That's not going to happen, whether because the Golf III is light, or folks don't want to reduce the weight of one of the more highly developed ITB cars out there (speaking on aggregate here, not about one specific car). Of course the Golf III having that exact same chassis, more torque and less lb/hp is why it has not taken long at all for them to gravitate to the front of the grid in every division that they are competing within a year or two. I welcome the compeition, but the Rabbits, Sciroccos, Golfs and Civics certainly deserve an equal opportunity within the system to get off the corner and down the straight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We can debate VW's all day. The bottom line here for this group is that half the ITAC would like to run every car through the process and reset it's weigh +/- ZERO, the other half thinks what we have is 'good enough' given the inherent guesses in the developed process.

I think we can always do better, but I empathise with the folks that would like to see some stability for a while. I think IT has never been healthier in terms of what can win.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The MkIII got spec'd pre-Kirk but when the requests to revisit it came in, I don't recall any subtractor for the rear beam. Jake? Josh? Anyone? If there was, it didn't make it into the record.

Besides - the other Golfs would get the same adjustment and I *think* it's pretty safe to bet that Chris's math is relative to the MkII.

:shrug: <--- Confused

K

Kirk,

See IT-07-051 on our site.

[Greg Amy]

One is an absolute. A rule has been set and we all have to follow it. Failure to meet that rule, and run 5 lbs under, is objective, measurable and a bright line.
For a rule to be absolute, sacrosanct, and inviolate, the process that sets it must be as well. No rule commands more respect than the process/attitude that creates it.


...but I empathise with the folks that would like to see some stability for a while. I think IT has never been healthier in terms of what can win.
Let's ensure that this empathy is not misplaced towards persons who enjoy advantages - perceived or actual - due to the "status quo."

GA

[Knestis]

Kirk,

See IT-07-051 on our site.

Thanks, Andy - I stand corrected, as is often the case when I rely on my memory.

I know that this isn't just supposed to be about the VWs but they are a natural point of comparison, since as Chris points out, they share a lot of the same technology over 3 generations and multiple generations of specification decisions. This factor isn't going to make the math closer, I don't think.

K

[dickita15]

I think the process is the most important thing that has made IT what it is today. I think the ITAC need to keep working on the process until vehicle classification really is formulamatic and then every car should be classed based in the process exactly. Ok you can round to the nearest pound.
Has any good efforts been made to come up with a way to use torque in the process, anything close?

[shwah]

We can debate VW's all day. The bottom line here for this group is that half the ITAC would like to run every car through the process and reset it's weigh +/- ZERO, the other half thinks what we have is 'good enough' given the inherent guesses in the developed process.

And obviously the former half is right :D


I think IT has never been healthier in terms of what can win.

Here here.:happy204:

It is good, and you can continue to make it better.

[tom91ita]

Your right Andy. I mis-read your post mentioning the -50 for the rear beam. Sorry about that.

At the end of the day, the Golf III and Golf II are the same car in terms of chassis. If the Golf III is spot on then the Golf II should be speced at 2145 (20.4lb/stock hp). That's not going to happen, whether because the Golf III is light, or folks don't want to reduce the weight of one of the more highly developed ITB cars out there (speaking on aggregate here, not about one specific car). Of course the Golf III having that exact same chassis, more torque and less lb/hp is why it has not taken long at all for them to gravitate to the front of the grid in every division that they are competing within a year or two. I welcome the compeition, but the Rabbits, Sciroccos, Golfs and Civics certainly deserve an equal opportunity within the system to get off the corner and down the straight.

three quick questions:

what is IT-07-051? i looked at scca's website and did not get any hits on the search.

what is the -50 for the rear beam? does the golf have a rear beam axle like my crx?

and the 20.4 # / stock hp is interesting. my crx is 2130 #'s and 91 hp stock which works out to 23.4 #/hp.

just trying to understand. tia, tom

[Knestis]

From my corner, Dick - I *think* that maybe what we lack is a theoretical basis on which we might base a process that more effectively considers torque. My admittedly lacking understanding is that "horsepower" is in most cases a derived value for work, that results from math applied to what is actually a torque measurement taken by the mechanical bits of a dyno.

Further, if one buys the old saw that "horsepower sells engines, torque wins races," AND we understand that some of the issues we deal with as we look at the "formula" behind the process (e.g., how the torqueless wonders struggle compared to where they "should be..."

...then maybe we're missing a bet by ignoring torque. Again - if some smart someone could say, "Here's what really matters, and here's how torque/HP relate to one another," and maybe help with some peripheral issues like the influence of gearing, I have a little hope that we might be able to come up with adjustments to the math that improves the entire deal.

K

[Knestis]

Tom - IT-07-051 is the internal designation of a request submitted by a member, that made it to the ITAC for review and recommendation. Those aren't in the searchable content and the number doesn't follow the request all the way through to a Fastrack announcement of action, if any.

K

[seckerich]

From my corner, Dick - I *think* that maybe what we lack is a theoretical basis on which we might base a process that more effectively considers torque. My admittedly lacking understanding is that "horsepower" is in most cases a derived value for work, that results from math applied to what is actually a torque measurement taken by the mechanical bits of a dyno.

Further, if one buys the old saw that "horsepower sells engines, torque wins races," AND we understand that some of the issues we deal with as we look at the "formula" behind the process (e.g., how the torqueless wonders struggle compared to where they "should be..."

...then maybe we're missing a bet by ignoring torque. Again - if some smart someone could say, "Here's what really matters, and here's how torque/HP relate to one another," and maybe help with some peripheral issues like the influence of gearing, I have a little hope that we might be able to come up with adjustments to the math that improves the entire deal.

K

Torque is the only quantity you can actually measure Kirk. HP is just the equation of the work possible. HP is actually a time, force, distance calculation. Gearing can change HP slightly due to different driveline losses but torque is always the constant. There is a reason we use a torque rather than a HP wrench.:) I hope you will set goals within the ITAC to work towards refining the process over time to include Torque. Having this discussion is a good start.:023:

[lateapex911]

Trust me Steve, there is a LOT of discussion within the ITAC regarding improving the process. And by that I mean the "process" as you know it, as well as the greater process that surrounds the "process".

Again, it seems to me that it's better to take aim, shoot for your target, accept that you might not be dead on, but shoot for every target that you are given using the same methods. AND, if you are asked to shoot for a certain target that has already been shot at (that didn't have the same methods used), that you apply the consistent methods you've been using, you take your shot, then you use the result, without discarding the results, whether they are "within a range" or not, regardless if it's within your shooting confidence window.

You do your best, and you take the results, and you live with them. Simple, right?

[shwah]

three quick questions:

what is the -50 for the rear beam? does the golf have a rear beam axle like my crx?

and the 20.4 # / stock hp is interesting. my crx is 2130 #'s and 91 hp stock which works out to 23.4 #/hp.

just trying to understand. tia, tom
The Golf has a twist beam rear axle - imagine a giant sway bar serving as the rear axle.

The 20.4 was just a simple 2350 / 115 (stock Golf III hp). Your comment is exactly why I tossed the Honda into my list.

I don't want to start that debate up as well, BUT, I do understand that there could be cars with 'x' factors that change how they respond to the process. The rotary RX7 is a good example. I concede that there may be a need to treat some cars uniquely in the process, but I don't think there is agreement about how to determine if or how a car would end up with a 'process modifier'. I was starting to wonder if there was a process modifier for my car that assumed more power gains than typical when I first started looking at this stuff, and I would also wonder if that were the case with the Honda sitting at 23.4#/stock hp. <------ If we want to go way down the road of this debate we should probably start a new thread (or resurrect the last one) ((heck we should probably take this whole discussion to another thread)).

[tom91ita]

not really wanting to hijack the thread. it was just interesting numbers. and i will admit that the coefficient of drag is likely less on my car, etc., etc.,

but it is most interesting to have these discussions with folks i have raced with on various tracks because then we have some idea of what is going on.

and then there is the new tires, etc.

the weight difference might be valid or not. i know that my laptimes at the ARRC were far from consistent. i did not mean to be complaining. just trying to better understand.

back to your regularly scheduled programming....

[pfcs]

the torque vs hp question is a slippery slope. The concepts can be very confusing.
A car will have it's max accelleration at it's torque peak-period. But horsepower being a function of rpm (angular velocity) and torque, is more expressive of the ability of the engine to accellerate the vehicle (do work). If 2 otherwise equal cars generate the same torque, the one that generates that torque at higher rpm will accellerate faster. Consider the VW Cup TDI jettas: sub 1 minute lap times @LRP, 2880lb cars, 119hp, but torque is HUGE. If they developed that torque at 5000 rpm, they'd probably be making 300hp and going several secs faster.

[Andy Bettencourt]

the torque vs hp question is a slippery slope. The concepts can be very confusing.
A car will have it's max accelleration at it's torque peak-period. But horsepower being a function of rpm (angular velocity) and torque, is more expressive of the ability of the engine to accellerate the vehicle (do work). If 2 otherwise equal cars generate the same torque, the one that generates that torque at higher rpm will accellerate faster. Consider the VW Cup TDI jettas: sub 1 minute lap times @LRP, 2880lb cars, 119hp, but torque is HUGE. If they developed that torque at 5000 rpm, they'd probably be making 300hp and going several secs faster.

They make 170hp and 300ft/lbs.

http://www.vw.com/vwhype/motorsport/en/us/#/jetta_tdi_cup/tdi_racecar/

[seckerich]

They make 170hp and 300ft/lbs.

http://www.vw.com/vwhype/motorsport/en/us/#/jetta_tdi_cup/tdi_racecar/

Run that car through the process and see what we get.:D I also disagree with the blanket statement about peak torque. The torque band is much more important as is the power band. Next time you go to the dyno look at the spread sheet on elapsed time and distance. I bet the guys beating you are. Good debate.

[CRallo]

the torque vs hp question is a slippery slope. The concepts can be very confusing.
A car will have it's max accelleration at it's torque peak-period. But horsepower being a function of rpm (angular velocity) and torque, is more expressive of the ability of the engine to accellerate the vehicle (do work). If 2 otherwise equal cars generate the same torque, the one that generates that torque at higher rpm will accellerate faster.

half right / half wrong

you have the right definitions, but your evidence/data does not support your hypothisis...

Basically: Torque is the force applied to the drivetrain by the engine and Horsepower is the ability of the engine to do work. (accel the vehicle) Therefore peak acceleration will be at peak horsepower. If peak accel were at peak torque, we wouldn't be winding our engines so tight lol just think about it for a minute...

the fact the car that makes a higher peak torque at a higher RPM will accel faster is true, but only because that means it makes more horsepower also because, as you said, horsepower is a funtion of torque and RPM.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Run that car through the process and see what we get.:D I also disagree with the blanket statement about peak torque. The torque band is much more important as is the power band. Next time you go to the dyno look at the spread sheet on elapsed time and distance. I bet the guys beating you are. Good debate.

Luckly, we don't have too...turbo!

[CRallo]

Run that car through the process and see what we get.:D I also disagree with the blanket statement about peak torque. The torque band is much more important as is the power band. Next time you go to the dyno look at the spread sheet on elapsed time and distance. I bet the guys beating you are. Good debate.


You are (almost) right on the money here.

Peak Torque has very little to do with it. Nor does peak horsepower. It is the Horsepower band that matters here. Specifically "the area under the curve" or the average HP generated within the useful powerband.

For example: a car that has little midrange torque will have even less midrange hp while an engine that makes good mid range torque will tend to have a much wider "powerband" and more average horsepower even if the peak horsepower is less.


:smilie_pokal:"peak hp wins dyno days, average hp wins races":smilie_pokal:


Here I tried to keep it short and to the point, but I'll explain more if anyone doesn't understand the concept.

[CRallo]

Has any good efforts been made to come up with a way to use torque in the process, anything close?


In my eyes, the most accurate way to take "torque" into account, is to use an average horsepower number and not a peak horsepower number. This however would not be simple...

a few possible issues that come to mind:
-where would the data come from??
-different cars/engines use different RPM bands...
-certain cars may have very different average hp numbers and or operate in a different rpm band in IT trim vs stock due to certain limitations that modifications permitted by the IT ruleset negate.

I'm sure that someone more experienced with this stuff could add more... or maybe come up with an idea to handle the already mention issues...

somebody chew on that and see what you can come up with:blink:

[JoshS]

In my eyes, the most accurate way to take "torque" into account, is to use an average horsepower number and not a peak horsepower number. This however would not be simple...

a few possible issues that come to mind:
-where would the data come from??


This is by far the biggest problem. Solve that and the rest will follow.

[JeffYoung]

And that is my personal "ME" problem. If you go to a average hp number, I've got a ton of torque below 3500 RPM or so that just isn't usable. I get killed. 325e gets killed with weight.

The average hp numbers reward high revving cars that make peak power in a narrow band.

Someone above posted something along the lines of "IT is working really well right now, why monkey with it?" That I agree with. No overdogs in S, A, or B that I can see.



-certain cars may have very different average hp numbers and or operate in a different rpm band in IT trim vs stock due to certain limitations that modifications permitted by the IT ruleset negate.

:blink:

[pfcs]

"you have the right definitions, but your evidence/data does not support your hypothisis...

Basically: Torque is the force applied to the drivetrain by the engine and Horsepower is the ability of the engine to do work. (accel the vehicle) Therefore peak acceleration will be at peak horsepower. If peak accel were at peak torque, we wouldn't be winding our engines so tight lol just think about it for a minute..."
Sorry Ralph but you're wrong. Torque is force and that's what accellerates a anything.
By changing gearing, you can skew that relationship but in ANY gear, the vehicle will have the greatest accelleration as it passes thru the torque peak. Period!
Because of that confusing relationship between HP & torque there is much misinformation. One fairly true rule is that you will get the best use of the package if you arrange gearing so that if you shift @max hp, the rpm falls back to max torque (torque peak). Most racer's, especially those with fairly stock engines, mistake noise for accelleration and use a higher rev range than is ideal, myself included!

[Andy Bettencourt]

And that is my personal "ME" problem. If you go to a average hp number, I've got a ton of torque below 3500 RPM or so that just isn't usable. I get killed. 325e gets killed with weight.

The average hp numbers reward high revving cars that make peak power in a narrow band.

Someone above posted something along the lines of "IT is working really well right now, why monkey with it?" That I agree with. No overdogs in S, A, or B that I can see.

And cars that already perfrom well with little torque like the 2nd gen RX-7 will get rewarded.

Right now, things are fine IMHO. Is there a car that is hurting their repsective class because it has too much torque? The process does take it into account - just like any subjective adder - when it's anomolous to its class. The ITR pony cars are getting 100lbs for just torque.

[CRallo]

And that is my personal "ME" problem. If you go to a average hp number, I've got a ton of torque below 3500 RPM or so that just isn't usable. I get killed. 325e gets killed with weight.

The average hp numbers reward high revving cars that make peak power in a narrow band.



Not sure you read what i wrote quite right... or if I wrote it quite right. the idea is that only the ave hp in the powerband that would actually get used(usually/often) would be considered... that however, sure doesn't make things any simpler

[CRallo]

Sorry Ralph but you're wrong. Torque is force and that's what accellerates a anything.
By changing gearing, you can skew that relationship but in ANY gear, the vehicle will have the greatest accelleration as it passes thru the torque peak. Period!
Because of that confusing relationship between HP & torque there is much misinformation. One fairly true rule is that you will get the best use of the package if you arrange gearing so that if you shift @max hp, the rpm falls back to max torque (torque peak). Most racer's, especially those with fairly stock engines, mistake noise for accelleration and use a higher rev range than is ideal, myself included!

wait! who is this Ralph guy?? lol

as far as the important part goes: once again you speak some truth. And you seem to be a pretty smart (albiet stubborn) guy. However you need to review your physics...

Food for thought:
FORCE is what accelerates anything - absolutely correct!! however WORK tells us how or at what rate that FORCE is applied. - I think you said that too. WORK tells us how much energy is put into something over what distance. HORSEPOWER tells us how or at what rate that TORQUE is applied. HORSEPOWER tells us how much energy the engine puts out at what RPM

or look at it this way:
Work is putting energy into something, in this case a kinetic energy into a racecar. Horsepower is the engine's capacity for doing work. Therefore when the engine is operating at a higher horsepower it is capable of (and is) putting kinetic energy into the car at a higher rate which would result in a higher rate of acceleration.

once again the "rule" you mentioned is a good one, but not the best. The best rule would be to use the RPM band where you have "the most area under the horsepower curve" This would most likely mean revving a bit past peak hp as long as it does not drop off quickly...


My physics courses were not yesterday, I don't have all the formula's memorized but the basics of what I am telling you are true. Fact not opinion... please do some research before you try to tell me I am wrong again.

[CRallo]

And cars that already perfrom well with little torque like the 2nd gen RX-7 will get rewarded.

Right now, things are fine IMHO. Is there a car that is hurting their repsective class because it has too much torque? The process does take it into account - just like any subjective adder - when it's anomolous to its class. The ITR pony cars are getting 100lbs for just torque.


1st part: it performs well because it has a good "area under the curve" in the RPM band that it used while at speed on the track. Torque, or lack there of, has nothing to do with it...

2nd part: and what is this based on?? are you serious?? Are those pigs not heavy enough already? 100 lbs??? ouch...

[JeffYoung]

Understood. Then the argument becomes what is the useable power band for each car. That to me, respectfully, sounds like a nightmare.

I'd rather have the 25/50/100 subjective adder for torque.


Not sure you read what i wrote quite right... or if I wrote it quite right. the idea is that only the ave hp in the powerband that would actually get used(usually/often) would be considered... that however, sure doesn't make things any simpler

[pfcs]

My physics courses were not yesterday, I don't have all the formula's memorized but the basics of what I am telling you are true. Fact not opinion... please do some research before you try to tell me I am wrong again.
__________________

I took physics a long time ago, but force=mass x accelleration (F=MA) still applies.
Or A= F/M. The greater the force, the greater the acceleration. In any gear, the force is maximized at the torque peak of the engine. If you shift up, the gearing multiplies the torque out of the trans, but the engine torque is lower, and the derived torque out of the transmission is less than the torque at the same output rpm (vehicle velocity). You can make it clear by thinking what happens to rear wheel torque when you shift to a lower gear-look at the torque curve and do the math: you're running a fixed ratio with a variable torque as you move along the torque curve, where will the torque at the wheels be max? At the engine torque peak. I know it's somewhat counter-intuitive, but it's the hard truth and simple physics. This does not mean we want to lug the engine, just that when you're at peak torque in any gear, the vehicle will have it's max accelleration at that velocity-if you're revving a gear past the point where the next gear would bring you to the torque peak, you're leaving accelleration on the table.

[dickita15]

In my eyes, the most accurate way to take "torque" into account, is to use an average horsepower number and not a peak horsepower number. This however would not be simple...

-where would the data come from??


in order to use torque in any kind of process calculation we would need to use stock numbers like we do horsepower now. no other way would fit the premise of the process.

[JeffYoung]

How do we determine "useable power band" for purposes of the process?

Seems impossible to me.


in order to use torque in any kind of process calculation we would need to use stock numbers like we do horsepower now. no other way would fit the premise of the process.

[CRallo]

How do we determine "useable power band" for purposes of the process?

Seems impossible to me.


Take the biggest(or average) rpm change the engine would see on a shift near redline in the first four gears based on each cars gearing. now take that number as the witdh of your powerband and take it to the horsepower graph of that car to find where it will be... however, some variables here include cars that will rev higher than stock when in IT trim and rearend gear ratio... these would have to be controlled or dealt with. It may be a can of worms not worth opening, but it's a one worth considering or building on...

[924Guy]

OK, just wanted to get your attention.

I had resisted the assertion that ITB was the 'new ITA' - but heck, this class is really redifining itself into something special. Accords, Civic's, CRX's, Volvo's, Golfs, 924's, BMW's, Audi's, Preludes, a freakin' gorgeous Alfa...

Awesome guys. Awesome. Add in Scott, The Canadians, the Blethens, Beren, Boo-hee - and oh-snap is that a showdown.

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?

Ironic that this post started another heated argument on IT.com about rules... just had to remind you all where we started this discussion... :blink:

[CRallo]

[QUOTE=pfcs;277095]
I took physics a long time ago, but force=mass x accelleration (F=MA) still applies.
Or A= F/M. The greater the force, the greater the acceleration. In any gear, the force is maximized at the torque peak of the engine...QUOTE]

You make a very, very good arguement. I've actually doubted my self a bit since we started this... However, every time I review it I come back to the same conclusion.

You are right about Force, but like you say, it's not so simple...


More food for thought:

-If torque is all that matters, than why are we so worried about hp?
-why do we measure an engine's performance (it's ability to accelerate the vehicle) in horsepower??
-ever ride a 600cc sport bike? it makes very little torque, but at 16000 RPM it makes alot of horsepower and accelerates like a bat out of hell!!!
-ask a good engine builder or dyno guy where the peak acceleration is... trust me the only reason they car about torque is because when you put some rpm into the equation you get horsepower and that is what makes the car go!




good debate, though we definitely hijacked this thread...

[Knestis]

1st part: it performs well because it has a good "area under the curve" in the RPM band that it used while at speed on the track. Torque, or lack there of, has nothing to do with it...

2nd part: and what is this based on?? are you serious?? Are those pigs not heavy enough already? 100 lbs??? ouch...

You don't know if they are "heavy enough" because an ITR Mustang, Camaro, or Firebird has yet to hit the track. We're not talking about adding 100# to their stock weight - we're talking about the process of listing them in ITR to include an "adder" of that amount in an attempt to take torque into consideration. Remember that the basics of the process use the stock quoted HP number as a starting point.

* * *

Dick is right on that we are constrained to the stock quoted numbers - warts and all - as the inputs to our process. We can NOT do any calculus to derive areas under curves because we don't HAVE curves to work with.

Maybe let's be a little LESS clever for a second: How can we consider QUOTED torque and/or HP to more reasonably manage the variables. My thinking was that maybe it's torque INSTEAD of HP, since the latter is derived, and since we can control what we do with that torque to some degree with final drive gearing...?

K

[Ron Earp]

I’ve been following this discussion with great interest. I’ve posted plots in the past showing the linearity of IT classed weight with hp, and posted plots that show very little correlation between torque and IT classed weight. I’ve drawn up some models in Excel but none of them do what is needed.

As it has been pointed out, the engine only puts out a twisting force, torque, and we conveniently calculate horsepower from this so that we know how much work we can do with a particular engine. One proposed scheme would use the torque curve of the motor and simply integrate this for the area. We’d then use this area to class the car. But there are many problems here, the largest of which is we will never have the torque curves of the motors in question and anomalies such as this one (data from some very IT-like cars, probably easy to figure out which ones..):


http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/engines.jpg



These cars would probably turn somewhat similar lap times at a similar weight. But following strict adherence to the torque curve model CarB would be classed incorrectly with respect to weight. It'd be "too fast" on track due to lack of weight in comparison with what CarA would get from the torque model.

I remember reading an article by Kevin Cameron (Cycle World writer, crew chief, engine builder, and all around guru of mechanics) where he pointed out an extremely simple but valid point. If given two motors with similar hp and torque peaks, the engine with the larger RPM difference between the hp and torque peak is the engine you want to be racing, you’ll be winning.

Maybe it would be possible to come up with a multivariate model that takes into account Peak HP, Peak Torque, and the RPM difference in these peaks. I’d certainly be willing to try it out.

Ron

[Andy Bettencourt]

Whatever models you want to test, understand that you can't use dyno charts and area under the curve - because these things don't exist for 90% of the cars in the ITCS.

We all know torque is a factor but what is broken that we are trying to fix here? We are racing track cars. If you could trade your high torque-low revving tractor motor for a free-spinning, high-revving motor with less torque - at the same weight, I bet ya'll would. We aren't pulling sleds of lead for 300 feet.

I ask again, what car is out there that is hurting a class so badly that this needs to be re-invented? The hp-based model with exceptions for torque/displacement seems to be working fine. I am all for improvement - but you guys are tilting windmills, no?

[lateapex911]

And cars that already perfrom well with little torque like the 2nd gen RX-7 will get rewarded.

Right now, things are fine IMHO. Is there a car that is hurting their repsective class because it has too much torque? The process does take it into account - just like any subjective adder - when it's anomolous to its class. The ITR pony cars might be getting 100lbs for just torque, if the CRB approves the inclusion of them.

Fixored that for 'ya........:cool:

[seckerich]

Whatever models you want to test, understand that you can't use dyno charts and area under the curve - because these things don't exist for 90% of the cars in the ITCS.

We all know torque is a factor but what is broken that we are trying to fix here? We are racing track cars. If you could trade your high torque-low revving tractor motor for a free-spinning, high-revving motor with less torque - at the same weight, I bet ya'll would. We aren't pulling sleds of lead for 300 feet.

I ask again, what car is out there that is hurting a class so badly that this needs to be re-invented? The hp-based model with exceptions for torque/displacement seems to be working fine. I am all for improvement - but you guys are tilting windmills, no?

Spoil sport. It is winter and we are bored. You could at least play along for a little longer.:026:

[lateapex911]

Spoil sport. It is winter and we are bored. You could at least play along for a little longer.:026:


Yea, Andy comes up with a thread about how cool ITB is these days, and....of course....it goes all bassackawrds on him! LOL. :024:

[Catch22]

I PERSONALLY agree that, based on what I understand of the specification system, that the MkIII Golf is something like 50-80 pounds too light. That's compared to the process weight (as I recall, too rushed this morning to dig out the spreadsheet), not to other cars in the class that might be at different places relative to that same index.

K

And once again I am on record as agreeing with Kirk on this one.
I like to use results as an indicator that the process needs to be double checked, but NOT as a motivation to make a change.

But I will note this (again)...
If the process says that car A is 80lbs too light and car B is 120lbs too heavy... Thats a 200lb disparity.

THAT needs to be fixed. I think most of the ITAC agrees with that and I have confidence that they are working on it.

ITB currently has the potential to be the most diverse class in club racing. Add to that the (relatively) cheap cost to play and the current economy and "getting it right" becomes very important.
I can easily see grids with ~30 cars at the big races, with as many as 10 or 11 makes and models having a legit shot at the win. But we gotta fix those little issues like 200lb "in process" weight swings first.

I get all warm and fuzzy thinking about what ITB could be in the very near future, and the amount of "secret car club" points that could be dropped in the process.

[PSherm]

I ask again, what car is out there that is hurting a class so badly that this needs to be re-invented?


All the ITA cars except the Neon! :p

[Rabbit07]

All the ITA cars except the Neon! :p


Careful.......:birra:

[Andy Bettencourt]

THAT needs to be fixed. I think HALF of the ITAC agrees with that and I have confidence that they are working on it.



Fixed that for ya. That is where the wheels start to spin...

[Catch22]

Don't depress me Andy.

Its just math.
Plain old math.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Don't depress me Andy.

Its just math.
Plain old math.

I feel yer pain my friend.

[lateapex911]

But I will note this (again)...
If the process says that car A is 80lbs too light and car B is 120lbs too heavy... Thats a 200lb disparity.

THAT needs to be fixed. I think most of the ITAC agrees with that and I have confidence that they are working on it.

Oh, it's being discussed, of that there's no question!

Your example is a tad off. If car B comes in for a process check, and it's 120 heavy, it gets adjusted. If it's 99 heavy, it gets left alone.

So, there's the potential of a 198 pound delta, of course, in reality, it's less.

(You know, if some of you feel strongly that cars coming up for process reviews get adjusted when they are within 100 pounds of the process number, feel free to write the ITAC with your opinion. )

But, my take is that we aim for the bullseye, and we live with that number. I can see rounding to the nearest 5 but that's it. Our resolution level needs to be the same as techs. We don't post "ranges".

[dickita15]

You don't know if they are "heavy enough" because an ITR Mustang, Camaro, or Firebird has yet to hit the track.


WHOA. Kirk you do realize you are close to suggesting on track performance being used to as a check on the classification process.

I feel a chill here in hell. :D

[Ed Funk]

I feel a chill here in hell. :D

Nah, with this economy, they've turned down the thermostat to save fuel:rolleyes:

[pfcs]

"If torque is all that matters, than why are we so worried about hp?
-why do we measure an engine's performance (it's ability to accelerate the vehicle) in horsepower??"

Because it matters a lot! A car that develops the same torque as another, but does it at twice the rpm, makes twice the horsepower-BUT-both cars accellerate their fastest as they pass thru their respective torque peaks.

[Catch22]

Oh, it's being discussed, of that there's no question!

Your example is a tad off. If car B comes in for a process check, and it's 120 heavy, it gets adjusted. If it's 99 heavy, it gets left alone.

So, there's the potential of a 198 pound delta, of course, in reality, it's less.

(You know, if some of you feel strongly that cars coming up for process reviews get adjusted when they are within 100 pounds of the process number, feel free to write the ITAC with your opinion. )

But, my take is that we aim for the bullseye, and we live with that number. I can see rounding to the nearest 5 but that's it. Our resolution level needs to be the same as techs. We don't post "ranges".

I guess we need baby steps.
Its frustrating, but I suppose it is what it is.

I'd suggest correcting the cars that currently fall outside the 100lb target first (low hanging fruit thats WAY off). Then address the issue of "how close to we want to be?"

Personally I think you can get a helluva lot closer than 100lbs and it isn't that hard to do so. But I guess some folks think its harder than that (for the life of me I can't figure out WHY this seems so hard).

And as I've said before...
If the process says Car A has a p/w ratio of 17, and it says Car B has a p/w ratio of 19... Well... Duh.
That is SOOOO far off that arguing about minutae is just stupid. Just fix it. Hell, just get it close.

Everyone with a brain realizes the process is not now, nor will it ever will be perfect. But when its THAT wrong just fix it dammit.
Why... Because once again, if this car is way wrong one way, and another car is way wrong another way... Thats not fair competition. Plain and simple.

Its simple math. We can do better. It benefits ALL of us and the health of our entire category to eliminate the things that are just plain wrong. You don't have to make it perfect, but eliminating completely wrong is a great first step.

[Knestis]

WHOA. Kirk you do realize you are close to suggesting on track performance being used to as a check on the classification process.

I feel a chill here in hell. :D

I SO did not say that. :eek:

K

[CRallo]

"If torque is all that matters, than why are we so worried about hp?
-why do we measure an engine's performance (it's ability to accelerate the vehicle) in horsepower??"

Because it matters a lot! A car that develops the same torque as another, but does it at twice the rpm, makes twice the horsepower-BUT-both cars accellerate their fastest as they pass thru their respective torque peaks.

here you made some statements(two true ones, one not), but failed to answer the question(s)

I apologize, I am not the best teacher when it comes to this stuff. I apparently do not know how to make you understand this concept... I had hoped that the way that Ron talked about it might help you. Anyone have a different way of explaining this to him?? Maybe its time to crack a book...

[CRallo]

Nah, with this economy, they've turned down the thermostat to save fuel:rolleyes:


Ed, you never cease to crack me up :happy204:

[CRallo]

You don't know if they are "heavy enough" because an ITR Mustang, Camaro, or Firebird has yet to hit the track. We're not talking about adding 100# to their stock weight - we're talking about the process of listing them in ITR to include an "adder" of that amount in an attempt to take torque into consideration. Remember that the basics of the process use the stock quoted HP number as a starting point.


I understand that... I was just refering to the fact that they are already pretty heavy cars. And also eluding to the fact that I'm scared of a mostly random quanity of weight being thrown at a car and worried that the car will be classified too heavy.





Dick is right on that we are constrained to the stock quoted numbers - warts and all - as the inputs to our process. We can NOT do any calculus to derive areas under curves because we don't HAVE curves to work with.


definitely stock quoted numbers... has anyone suggested otherwise? As far as the curves go: it was just an idea guys... what are the odds they could be gotten?? would it be worth it??

[lateapex911]

Just getting the basic numbers is tougher than you'd think, and in many cases they are inconsistent. Not to mention the different measuring methods, (Old SAE, Din, etc, etc) CURVES!?!

I would like nothing more, but I know what is worth hoping for, and curves won't be happening.

[Gary L]

Oh, it's being discussed, of that there's no question!

Your example is a tad off. If car B comes in for a process check, and it's 120 heavy, it gets adjusted. If it's 99 heavy, it gets left alone.

Wait a minute. I'm admittedly doing this from memory, but wasn't the Porsche 924 recently (mid-2008) adjusted from 2600 to 2525 lbs?

[pfcs]

I'm teachable but not the student:
Because it (HORSEPOWER) matters a lot! A car that develops the same torque as another, but does it at twice the rpm, makes twice the horsepower-BUT-both cars accellerate their fastest as they pass thru their respective torque peaks.
Horsepower expresses "the ability to do work" which is a function (as in mathmatical product) of torque and rpm (think force x distance)
And realize that the car that develops the same torque at twice the rpm (like you bike), will have twice the available force to accellerate it when we gear it down 50% so it has the same speed as the other one because by doing that, the gears doubled the torque to the wheels. And, although it has twice the acceleration of the first car, they are both having the max accelerations they can have at that speed because both are at their engines torque peak. Get it yet? If not, I give up.











g

[lateapex911]

Wait a minute. I'm admittedly doing this from memory, but wasn't the Porsche 924 recently (mid-2008) adjusted from 2600 to 2525 lbs?

If I recall, it went down to 2495 (a cut of 105). And It got an adder for brakes, again, from my memory.

[Andy Bettencourt]

wait A Minute. I'm Admittedly Doing This From Memory, But Wasn't The Porsche 924 Recently (mid-2008) Adjusted From 2600 To 2525 Lbs?

2495. Jake is correct. +50 for big brakes.

[CRallo]

Get it yet? If not, I give up

g


me too :D

what's that called?? "agree to disagree"

[nsuracer]

I have just taken a look thru the ITCS and after this looksee i think that much of this thread has been so much mental masturbation. I am sure that I am not the only one that sees the glaring inconsistencies in car weights. Before we get wrapped around the axle with P/W ratios, torque vs. horsepower ad nauseum, a stroll thru the ITB section with a little common sense might be in order. It looks as though when a car was first classified, it came in at stock curb weight and if nobody bitched, then it stayed that way. Either that or certain cars weren't welcome and they were high weighted out of contention (I really don't believe that).

I am going to throw about 1/2 a dozen examples out here and let the experts explain to me the reasoning behind the listed weights. My examples are all within the same brand, I am not comparing apples to oranges.

1. Alfa Romeo: All the solid axle cars are about the same. The Alfetta GT is 120 lbs heavier, why , rear suspension? The Alfetta sedan is 85 lbs heavier yet. Is that to compensate for the greater wind resistance and higher center of gravity?

2. BMW: The E30 chassis car is 65 lbs lighter that the E21 chassis car with the same engine. I was always led to believe that the E30 was the superior handler.

3. Ford: Mustang III 2550 lbs, Mercury Capri 2640, they are the same car. Ford Pinto 2490 lbs, Mercury Bobcat 2520-same car. Mustang II, same chassis as a Pinto only uglier, why does it to be 340 lbs heavier?

4. Saab: 72 Saab 99 with the crap Triumph motor runs 97 lbs heavier that the 73>99 with the Saab motor. The Saab 900 runs the same weight regardless of 8V or 16V motor. I garauntee that there is a significant difference.

5. Volvo: All 240s run the same weight with 3 different engines none of which will make as much power as the B20E motor in the 142, yet they are 140 lbs heavier.

6. One Apple to orange. Saab 99EMS w/ 2.0 motor 115 advertised horsepower , little or no aftermarket support, 2540 lbs.....Golf III, 2.0 motor 115 advertised hp, fair to large aftermarket support, 2350 ilbs......wtf!!!!

If I have shown my deriere here I welcome any and all corrections to my waywardness. There were more weights and whys that I questioned but this did not need to go on for ever. My point is that the simple stuff needs to be fixed before we get to the astro physics and quantum mechanics.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Alex,

I don't see you as being wayward one bit. What you have is a list of cars that were listed in the ITCS 'pre-process'. The newest stuff is run through and that is why some stuff doesn't make sence when a direct comparision is done. Add to that the +/- 100lb 'margin or error', and it gets easy to see how these things can be all over the board.

There is a faction within the ITAC that wants to reset the weights of every car in IT right down to the nearest 5lbs as per the process. There are some that just want to do that as requests come in to review. There are some that want to leave it as is.

On this issue, the ITAC spins it's wheels - and by default, the 3rd group gets it way...because no movement on the topic is indeed a position.

[AjG]

Hey that reminds me… How do we get the Bobcat weight changed to match the Pinto (2340#)? We run two Pinto’s and a Bobcat. The Bobcat's weight hasn’t been a problem at impound but I suppose it could be.

[Catch22]

On this issue, the ITAC spins it's wheels - and by default, the 3rd group gets it way...because no movement on the topic is indeed a position.

Unacceptable.
You simply are NOT serving the club membership when you look at something that doesn't make sense and make the choice to do nothing about it.

Nobody reasonably expects perfect, but there is a reasonable expectation that the committee members are there to push the category forward and repair things that are obviously broken. If thats not happening, its time for change.

Are ITAC members appointed for life?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Unacceptable.
You simply are NOT serving the club membership when you look at something that doesn't make sense and make the choice to do nothing about it.

Nobody reasonably expects perfect, but there is a reasonable expectation that the committee members are there to push the category forward and repair things that are obviously broken. If thats not happening, its time for change.

Are ITAC members appointed for life?

Well, lets be a little less harsh than that. Those that are against another 're-org' are not saying nothing, they are saying that it is as good as it can get and any more tinkering is too much like Prod. I disagree, but want to make sure it's not an abstenance thing, it's a conscious vote to keep things as is.

You probably knew that already but I wanted to defend a little - even though I disagree with the position.

[Knestis]

I'm right there with you too, Scott but even I've got to recognize that the ITAC members who think we need to leave things alone are equally convinced that they are doing the right thing. Or doing what the membership wants. It should NOT be possible for a minority of ad hoc committee members to drive an agenda so the status quo is "leave it alone."

There's no real geographic (or any other) system of "representation" on the ad hoc committees, but it can NOT hurt to let all of the members know what you (the collective "you," not just Scott) think is important.

K

EDIT to add ITAC member names

Josh Sirota, CA
Kirk Knestis, WV
Marshall Lytle, VA
Andy Bettencourt, MA
George Roffe, TX
Jake Gulick, CT
Lee Graser, TN
Les Chaney, NC
Bob Clark, WI

[Catch22]

I understand how it works. I also understand that sometimes good enough is simply good enough.

BUT...

When you have such ample evidence in front of you that says you are in fact NOT "good enough"... Then the "As-Is" position is not only wrong, its dangerous.

And I agree with Kirk (if I'm reading him correctly) that a minority of a committee should not have the ability to monkeywrench things. Thats another process issue that needs to be addressed.

Look, SCCA is no longer the only game in town, and we are losing the fight for younger racers because of issues just like this. While I'm not a proponent of quick fixes and dictator style rule making, we have to realize that at some point our process has GOT to get better than it is.

Classing and specs NEED to make sense and be fair.
And when they don't, we need to be able to make corrections in a timely manner.

There is no excuse for having classifications that are just completely wrong. There is even less excuse for a refusal to correct them once they are identified.
Its just completely unacceptable, and its NASA's best friend.

[ekim952522000]

Just to throw in my 2 cents I would really like to see ALL of the cars ran thru the process and put within 5lbs of the result it just makes the most sense, I have not heard any good argument for not doing this by not changing a car that is within 50lbs you are just adding to whatever error there already is and making it harder to dial in the "process".

[Andy Bettencourt]

Write your letters. Write a lot.

[Ed Funk]

How much time does it take to run a car through the "process"?
Does the whole committee need to be in on the math?
Can't the whole list be divided up and spread around to trusted committee members?
EVERY car listed should be "processed"!
Hell, run the Opel through, 74 stock horsepower and ~2200 lbs in ITB makes NO sence! And, there are obvioulsy others, why are just the "new" cars "processed" and the early cars left at their original weight which was based on stock curb weight? ...and why are there black helicopters making daily passes over our house?:rolleyes:

[924Guy]

LOL... write the letter, Ed. Worked for me (and Jake's memory is correct - the 924 weight was adjusted from 2600 to 2495# right near the beginning of this season).

It has been clearly stated before in at least a few of the many threads on implementation of the "process" - not all cars are to be run through automatically. New cars will of course be subject to it when classed, and any existing cars may be reviewed at request of a member. This is consistent with club practice for other classes and requests - member-driven action.

Personally, I'm beginning to think maybe a 50# threshold for adjustment might be more appropriate, given the potential spread of performance (200# vs. 100# weight difference, as noted previously).

Scott - I disagree that the "as-is" position is dangerous. Yes, it can be, but it isn't by default. It's far easier to F things up than it is to improve them! Given IT's popularity compared to all other SCCA classes, it's a reasonable conclusion that things are generally in quite good shape, relatively speaking. Not saying there's no room for improvement, but there's far more room for failure!

If you don't think rules stability, which this perspective supports, is so important, well, I'm seeing plenty of signs in other classes that they could use more.

And if you want to talk about NASA - OK - but seems like they're fighting even worse stability problems, and not just for class rules. GTS Challenge is the one I pay the most attention to, and things are looking really sketchy, to say the least. If NASA keeps going the route they seem to have chosen - well, then whole SCCA/NASA debate could be resolved sooner than one might expect!!

I'm looking to build my next car... but I want to be sure there's going to be a class to run it in 5 years from now! Just not worth the effort to invest in a car that I can only use for 2 years, then has to find a new home...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hell, run the Opel through, 74 stock horsepower and ~2200 lbs in ITB makes NO sence! And, there are obvioulsy others, why are just the "new" cars "processed" and the early cars left at their original weight which was based on stock curb weight? ...and why are there black helicopters making daily passes over our house?:rolleyes:

Ed, excellent car to discuss. As you know, we have one in NE that is VERY fast. We have all seen it run. Not using on-track as a deal breaker - and knowing there is no guarantee of legality...this car is (like many others) a HUGE red flag.

74 stock HP puts this car at 1745lbs in ITC. Yes, ITC. But due to it's age, hp ratings of the day, hp-killing smog equipment, etc...somehow it makes MUCH more than 75whp/93 crank hp as a 25% power multiplier would estimate.

YOU TELL ME...with this car, and many like it - when real data is not known, what are you supposed to do? Keeping in mind that fairness to ALL the competitors if paramount - as well as trying to be true to the process.

Sometimes you just know something isn't going to be right, yet you find that you don't have a preponderance of data to support your issues.

Please - don't just not answer. I would like to hear from someone who doesn't post much here what your solution is - given that you have a problem with the situation.

[Dave Zaslow]

Kinda going back to the original post here.

Certainly ITB is strong along the east coast, with a great divsersity of cars and good competitve fields. Looking at the results from races further west I am puzzled by the much smaller fields. If there are less than eight ITB cars starting a race here, it is shocking. Take a walk through the results at http://www.sccabb.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=82 and tell me your impression of why IT in general, and ITB in particular, has so much less support west of Ohio.

DZ


OK, just wanted to get your attention.

I had resisted the assertion that ITB was the 'new ITA' - but heck, this class is really redifining itself into something special. Accords, Civic's, CRX's, Volvo's, Golfs, 924's, BMW's, Audi's, Preludes, a freakin' gorgeous Alfa...

Awesome guys. Awesome. Add in Scott, The Canadians, the Blethens, Beren, Boo-hee - and oh-snap is that a showdown.

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?

[Ed Funk]

Andy, that car that you are talking about is an Opel Gt, different animal, better aero, less frontal area, higher compression ( 9.0 compared to 7.6 in the Ascon and Manta). that car is fast! ?too fast?, maybe. Driver is good!

Back in the day our Manta could run at the pointy end of the field at LRP, but mid-pack at NHIS, truly a momentum car!

I guess my big question of the day is why not run everything on the list through the "process"?

2nd question, and one to really piss some people off is why can't we have some transparency here? Exactly what is the "process"? I have asked this question before and been more or less blown off with "it's out there" responces, I can't find it! I've PM'd a committee member, so far no responce.

Further transparency: Who are the committee members that don't want to :"process" everything? What do they race? Those answers would allow the members to decide if we were being represented or if there is some self serving going on.

Told you it would piss some people off!!:024:

[Ed Funk]

OK, I'd like to request that all cars listed in the GCR IT section be run through the process. To whom do I address the letter?

[Greg Amy]

I guess my big question of the day is why not run everything on the list through the "process"?
+eleventybillion. I've yet to hear/read a reasonable defense if why this isn't being done.

And +2 for all of Ed's other questions.

A rebellion is brewing, boys...

[Ed Funk]

Andy,

Other differences in the Opel's: The GT had 102 hp, solid lifters as opposed to the 74 hp and hydraulic lifters in the Ascona/ Manta.

Seriously, I will write a letter to the ITAC in which I claim to be considering building every car in the book and request that they be "processed", what are you going to do then?

Come on committee, shit or get off the pot!

[Catch22]

Scott - I disagree that the "as-is" position is dangerous. Yes, it can be, but it isn't by default. It's far easier to F things up than it is to improve them! Given IT's popularity compared to all other SCCA classes, it's a reasonable conclusion that things are generally in quite good shape, relatively speaking. Not saying there's no room for improvement, but there's far more room for failure!

And if you want to talk about NASA - OK - but seems like they're fighting even worse stability problems, and not just for class rules. GTS Challenge is the one I pay the most attention to, and things are looking really sketchy, to say the least. If NASA keeps going the route they seem to have chosen - well, then whole SCCA/NASA debate could be resolved sooner than one might expect!!



Apples and oranges...

I am NOT a proponent of constant screwing with weights and specs and classing as we see elsewhere. Thats a problem, and its obviously one that turns people off if car counts can be used as an indicator.

What I DO think MUST happen is this...
If you apply the same process to 2 cars within the same class, the results need to at least be close. If its not, FIX IT.
This is not a situation where "as-is" is the correct approach. You can't screw up something thats already screwed up. You can either fix it or screw it up differently. One outcome is an improvement, the other is status quo... There is no risk.

We currently DO actually have multiple cars classed in IT, some that have already been through the "process" once, that have weight specs that can NOT be reasonably explained with process math. And I'm not talking about 20lbs off, I'm talking about 120lbs off.
So... If you can't make the process math work on a car thats (supposedly) been through the process... What does that tell you?
I know what it tells me. And the answer sets the category right back to where the whole mess started.

As far as NASA is concerned... You are correct. At least once a year they have a SERIOUS issue somewhere, piss membership off, and damage or completely kill off a once popular race series.
All SCCA needs to do is get rid of some of the silly, unexplainable stuff that we do and NASA will eventually take care of itself. But right now our club pushes people towards NASA. Honestly. We do.

The problem is rooted in when young racer X asks why his car has to carry xxxlbs of ballast in ITx and we can't give a valid and reasonable answer. He goes over to NASA's "a la carte" race classing and it looks a helluva lot more appealing.
This happens more than many of you guys realize. Honestly.
And NASA is very VERY good at using it to promote themselves and steal racers from SCCA.
Its not the only factor, but its a big one.

So... Write your letters.
I'll do the same... Again.

[jjjanos]

I guess we need baby steps.
Its frustrating, but I suppose it is what it is.

I'd suggest correcting the cars that currently fall outside the 100lb target first (low hanging fruit thats WAY off). Then address the issue of "how close to we want to be?"

Dead nuts, sitting on top of the exact process weight, period. I'll even leave some wiggle room - rounded up to the next 5lb interval.

There is absolutly no reason that cars with identical process inputs should have anything other than the identical weights. When a car was classified should not have any impact on its minimum weight. As it now stands, they could be 100lbs different.

If we have a model that classifies cars, then all cars need to be consistent with that model. If the model is revised, then all cars need to be rerun through the model and weights reset without some ridiculous and arbitrary "it's close enough" factor. Cars with identical inputs need identical minimum weights.

[Catch22]

OK, I'd like to request that all cars listed in the GCR IT section be run through the process.

That doesn't guarantee you anything.
Trust me.

Before you reach that point, there has to be agreement that there won't be any fooling around with process results for purposes of political appeasement.

We currently have cars that HAVE been through the process and are still way off the mark.

And I'm still so disappointed in this that the option of just quitting this whole business and walking away is still on the table for me.

[gran racing]

There are some that just want to do that as requests come in to review. There are some that want to leave it as is.

Dear ITAC, I request that all ITB cars be run through the process. Would that work? :D I do recognize the amount of work that would be involved but truly do think that if we're going to use "the process", we need to use it. I'll also preface this by saying the ITAC has done an amazing job with IT and sincerely appreciate the efforts and work they've put into this!! --On Edit: Ya beat me to pusing the post button Ed--


Personally, I'm beginning to think maybe a 50# threshold for adjustment might be more appropriate, given the potential spread of performance (200# vs. 100# weight difference, as noted previously).

How would the ITAC determine if a car were within the 50# threshold? Would they have to run it through the process or it is matter of “we don’t think the process would put it more than 25 – 75 lbs off so we won’t actually put it through the process.” Please tell me cars aren’t put through the process and simply not changed because it’s within the threshold whatever that may be.

Someone previously asked if I thought 50 lbs or would really matter in a race. Yeah, it matters. How often do we out qualify or get out qualified by someone going just a few hundreths of a second faster? Suprisingly to me, it happens quite often. Would a 50 lb difference in cars have impacted that differently? I know we're talking about a "little" advantage but over the course of a race, I sure as heck wouldn't mind having the advantage on my side. For those who truly think that 50 - 100 lbs doesn't matter, you better also say that you don't concern yourself with getting your car near minimum weight cause that's the same exact thing. We talk about how much time, effort and money we spend working on gaining a few extra HP, ensuring that there's as little rolling resistance as possible, and so on yet we should ignore this?

Maybe I simply don't understand when weight begins to make an impact. (I do understand the rationale of using 100 lbs initially, but it now needs to continue. Yes, I'll write in a letter to the ITAC.) Why does 105 lbs matter but 95 doesn't? There's only a 10 lb difference and if 95 lbs doesn't matter enough, why would an addtional 10 lbs matter? I hope we'd all agree that 75 lbs impacts a 90 HP ITC car more than an 180 HP ITS car. Since that's teh case, as a bare minimum shouldn't the amount we choose to ignore be different among the higher HP classes compared to the lower HP classes?

Andy, you asked me for some numbers about the Golf III. A while back I put together a document that listed several ITB cars comparing it to the Golf but decided this whole thing was just a lost cause and added it to recycle bin. Just comparing it to the older Accord / Prelude since that what I know off hand. When the Golf III is compared to many other ITB cars, it simply does not make sense.

Golf III
115 HP, 122 lbs torque, brake 226 mm, min weight 2350 lbs, p/w 20.43.

Accord (older gen) / Prelude
110 HP, 114 lbs torque, brake 207, min weight 2450 lbs, p/w 22.27.

I understand that the golf gets a subtractor for the rear beam, but it also benefits from higher HP and torque out of the box. I fail to see how it still weighs 100 lbs less.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dave,

Does your car have A-Arms in the front?

Again, you can't just compare random cars in the ITCS as some have been through and some not. I am a proponent of running them all through and setting them at the nearest 5lbs. Write your letters...please!

[nsuracer]

Being that I started this last subthread, I will offer to make a contribution. Give me the process and I will run the entire ITB class through it. I will then send the results to the ITAC for their perusal. They can then do with it as they please. (I will keep a copy). This process should not be a "I could tell ya but then I'd have to kill ya" kind of a deal.

Admittedly, a lot of the cars that I found problems with are not mainstream competitors in the class. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Are the weights wrong because nobody is racing them, or is no one racing them because the weights are wrong?

I will confess that my experience in IT is less than long. I built a Saab 99EMS from scratch in 92 but every time I brought it out it broke, so that experience is invalid. I currently have a A2 Golf and get to watch Chris Albin disappear into the distance at every race. Do I think that the A3 Golf is superior? Yes, with him driving it. I don't think that there is a big problem with the mainstream cars, but it sure discourages anyone wanting to bring out something weird.

Now, who wants to slip me the process?

[JeffYoung]

Doing this blindly (just running every car through the process) is going to screw up S and A. I agree it needs to be done, but if you do it without a better accounting for torque you are asking for trouble.

In A, the E30 325e is going to LOSE weight despite making extraordinary torque numbers, and it's already a front runner.

In S, my car presently makes 160 whp and 198 wtq. I am expecting that to go up with a full tilt fuel injection IT build with fuel computer (Haltech), perhaps significantly. If it is run through the process at 133 stock horsepower with even a 100 lb adder for torque, it is going to lose significant weight.

Before we run all cars through the process, we need to sort the torque issue first. This (torque) is a bigger problem in A and S because there are more cars with significant spreads between hp and torque.

And I do not believe a power number is the fix since it does not account for useable power band (see above). But some of the smart folks here I hope can come up to something that is a reasonable compromise.

[Greg Amy]

Doing this blindly (just running every car through the process) is going to screw up S and A.
With this statement, Jeff, you are effectively admitting to us that the process is already broken and doesn't work. So that means we're back to Ouija boards, "smoke-filled closed-door sessions" of guessing with a lot of people setting weights where they "think" they should be.

Which means, we're back to where we were 5 years ago. Just different names on the office door.

"Meet the new boss..."

[Catch22]

I don't think that there is a big problem with the mainstream cars

You aren't looking close enough.

I'll also volunteer to run every ITB car through the "process," and I already know how to do it (sometimes I wish I didn't).

I don't want an advantage. Far from it. What I want is to get as close as possible to nobody having an advantage. And fellas, we ain't even close to that.

Maybe its time for the ITAC to put together sub committees like we had for the initial creation of ITR. One for each class.

1. Tools - The process, its adders, and its p/w target range for that class.
2. Goal - Get every car in the ITAC within 5lbs of its goal for its class p/w.
3. Establish Timeline (1/1/09 is still reasonable right now)
4. PROFIT

Results not binding, but for use by the ITAC going forward.

Just a thought.

If the wheels are rolling within the ITAC right now I say leave it alone and let it roll. If its stuck in the mud, lets try something different.

[JeffYoung]

I understand your frustration and concern with the process, and Scott's (and the other posters). It is valid.

But, remember where we were, and where we are now, and how we got here. When the process was developed (and I was not a part of that), its goal was to fix a few glaring problems that were hurting S and A pretty badly (the 325 and the CRX). I don't remember anyone on the ITAC ever saying that all cars were going to be run through the process, although I think ultimately that should be the goal.

In using the process on the popular front runners, the ITAC has created tremendous parity and great racing. It provided that the process, or something like it, CAN WORK in IT.

When discussing expanding the process to all IT cars, something that needs to be done, we have hit on a problem. Torque. The process has issues in correctly dealing with torque. This has been something that has been brewing for a while.

We need to fix that, in my view, before we apply the process to all cars and potentially screw something up that is right now (perhaps as much by blind luck as anything else) working very well.

EDIT - I think Scott's idea has some merit. Maybe B and C DON'T have a torque problem, and their subcommittee can has that out. R, S and A do, and they can come up with their solution to it.

I volunteer for the S and R subcommittees (have an S car, building an R).

[ekim952522000]

I would volunteer to help out on a R subcommittee but I thought every car in ITR has already been ran threw the process since it was a class that was created after the process was?

[JeffYoung]

That is correct, BUT, R still has the "torque issue."

[gran racing]

Jeff, where we are now is a HUGE leap from where we were before (I was in ITA with my lude :blink:) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to work on improving it. Sure sounds like torque is something that needs to be addressed and the process further improved upon.


I don't remember anyone on the ITAC ever saying that all cars were going to be run through the process

That concerns me. All cars should be classified and weights established using the same methods.

We recognize that running more cars through the process is a significant amount of work. Maybe the idea of creating subcommitties to at least do the initial legwork and the ITAC would provide the next level of ruling would work? I'd also volunteer to help Scott and others out with ITB.

[Ed Funk]

Well, we've an A car, a B car, and a C car, guess that means we will volunteer to be on any or all of these sub-committees!

Kinda slow in the cat spaying world right now anyway:)

[JeffYoung]

The Great Realignment GENERALLY:

1. Set all weights in R using the process.

2. In S, the RX7 was the "bogey." The 944 and all the non 240 Z cars lost weight. I believe, but am not sure, that the Integra did as well. The E36s got a restrictor instead of their process weight.

3. In A, the 240sx and the CRX I believe got weight. Not sure about the Integra. I think the Miatas were classed in A using the process weight.

B I know nothing about, C even less.

[tom91ita]

Dave,

Does your car have A-Arms in the front?

Again, you can't just compare random cars in the ITCS as some have been through and some not. I am a proponent of running them all through and setting them at the nearest 5lbs. Write your letters...please!

Andy,

which ITB cars have been through the process?

do we effectively address our letters to the ITAC?

tia, tom

[ekim952522000]

That is correct, BUT, R still has the "torque issue."

Would the ITAC be willing to release their math for all of the cars in ITR for members to look at (or at least to the subcommitee)? It would probally help when looking at the "torque issue" to know where the numbers came from.

[JeffYoung]

I am pretty sure they would -- they have posted the formula here many times.

[Ron Earp]

Maybe its time for the ITAC to put together sub committees like we had for the initial creation of ITR. One for each class.

Only if we agree that if a car fits the process, the numbers pan out, then it WILL be classed. No prejudices, hearsay, voodoo, or non-factual information to be used.

I'll be happy to work on R and S.

[shwah]

Hey it's groundhog day.

When we hashed this out the last two times my recollection is that all the active cars were run through the process. Cars that landed more than 100# outside process weight were changed, the others were not looked at any further.

Someone needs to find a link to those discussions.

[tom91ita]

just ran some quick calc's/ratios for the info Dave had and added my car:



HP Torque T/HP Brakes weight Drag Cd # / HP # / ft-# T # per brake mm
Golf 115 122 1.06 226 2350 0.34 20.4 19.3 10.4
Prelude 110 114 1.04 207 2450 ? 22.3 21.5 11.8
CRX Si 91 93 1.02 231 2130 0.32 23.4 22.9 9.2

one thing that struck me was that the ratio for the Torque ft-#'s to hp was not too different. So using hp instead of torque seems less.

i threw in the ratio of weight to brake diameter just for grins as well as the weight per torque.

the golf Cd was from the net and is just a guess. of course, i think i have less cross sectional area as well.

and the formula should be a sticky somewhere in the rules thread.

tom, btw, the numbers looked so good when i pasted them from an excel sheet. is there a better way to format them into a table?

[PSherm]

Dumb question here - Is wheelbase figured in the equation? Should it be?

[robits325is]

Are the update/backdate options considered when classing a car?

[JeffYoung]

Paul: No.

Rob: Yes.

[lateapex911]

Quick history lesson-

1- '84 - 97 (?) or so....CRB set IT weights.

2- '96 -98 (?) (About) Ad hoc committees are created to help CRB research, CRB still sets weights.

3- Ad hoc committees get names, and added responsibility. CRB now guides them, they do the heavy lifting.

4- ITAC creates the "process" and part formula, part subjective adder method of determining weights in an effort to equalize years of inconsistency. In the past, if a version of a car was in B, the new version would go to A. I was told that, in the early days, all car that were untested went to the top class to "see how she'll do" before being put where they belonged. I'm unsure about the veracity of that, but it gives you an idea of where we were.

5- "Process and Great Realignment" proposal goes to the BoD via the CRB. This is a MAJOR philisophical shift, and the BoD was NOT keen to permit it. All the higher ups were of teh belief that the IT category was a "Set and forget" category, where no weight adjustment was allowed, and moving cars was the solution, rarely to be exercised. The fact that it went through was earth shaking, and it did so on the foundation that weights would "Rarely" be adjusted. THAT"S why the Great Realignement list" was limited to the cars that were on it....because NOTHING would have happened if the scope of the concept was greater.

6- Today-

Many cars that are in the ITCS have been run through the process. new listings have too. many cars though, have not. (See above list of old Saabs, etc for an idea). Last count has over 300 cars in the ITCS, I think. many are oddball cars, with sketchy information available.

Current ITAC standards are:
Requests for cars to be adjusted come in, and the math is done. If the process number varies by 100 or more, the car gets relisted at process weight. If not, it is left as is.

End of history lesson.


First and foremost, those of you who want the world to be perfect, well, life sucks, and it's going to take a while to get there. ;) The FIRST thing that needs to happen is that you guys write in and convince the ITAC that the 100 pound "window" is unacceptable. (The 100 pound window results in nearly 200 pounds of potential delta) THAT is a major reason that you see the oddities that you see. Yea, we know the Bassackwards V3 is the same car as the Assender 2000, but the old listings are within 100 pounds so they stay as is.

The second issue is one of time and resources. Information on lots of the obscure cars in the ITCS is very hard to come by, comes from dubious sources, or is inconsistant. And then there's the inconsistancies of the numbers themselves to be concerned with, as DIN, SAE, etc aren't the same from year to year, and the type of rating is often unlisted. So sources can be tricky. It takes time to sort thru it all. And there are a LOT of cases like that. And many of the cars that we're talking about have never been seen by anyone in recent years, so the question becomes, why waste all the time and resources for, essentially, nothing.

In a perfect world, every car would be researched, the truths about that car would be gleaned, and the numbers would be run, and it would all make sense.

But, in reality, that might not be the best use of our limited resources.


I suggest that the best approach is the market driven approach.

1- We do away with the silly window of adjustment. We get a request, we do the numbers, it gets published. Simple, no rejection because it's "close enough".

2- We let the public tell us where the problems are. If there's a guy racing a Saab 3 cylinder who thinks he's getting the shaft, them he writes and we look at the car. Or vice versa. If theres a guy getting his ass whipped by a Saab 3 cylinder, because the ITAC (or the CRB in '85, actually) failed to account for certain factors, HE writes in and we look at it.

But, no matter what, right now, there isn't a large enough majority on the ITAC that thinks the 100 pound window is unaccptabe. The ITAC members who defend it do so thinking that's what right for the members. It's up to you, as members, to convince them otherwise.

Write in, ask that it be removed, or tell us to institute a "1 percent window", or something, and tell us to trust the process and list the cars at the numbers the process spits out.

Until that happens, it's a logjam.

[shwah]

My letter(s) have been sent. I don't see much value in beating the horse from one member, but the rest of you reading this should think about where you stand, and let the ITAC know whether you want status quo and 100# tolerance (200# window) of an already imperfect process, or eliminate this extra noise and limit the potential miss to the accuracy of the process, and class them where the process drops them.

[pfcs]

"Doing this blindly (just running every car through the process) is going to screw up S and A. I agree it needs to be done, but if you do it without a better accounting for torque you are asking for trouble." Jeff
The issue isn't really torque-it's more about the torque curve-how well the engine continues to develop torque accross the rev range-which creates higher horsepower numbers. Your 3.5L engine, with mild camshaft timing and restricted inlet, makes (expected) large torque at low rpm, but that torque falls off quickly as revs rise (Jeff-I know you know this). The E36 with its modern/well engineered head and manifolds, augmented by adjustable cam timing, is able to generate prodigous torque accross the board, especiially at higher engine speeds, producing high HP #s as well as lower speed grunt. I can't think of a way to formulate a "rule" to factor this issue. Perhaps we could have a birth of common sense? (I was always a dreamer!). Assign engines to one of 3-5 groups based on fuzzy math. 3 groups is easiest/least contentious. If the Rover V8 is 1, then the BMW is 3. The A2/A3 VW is a 2. The 142E Volvo-is that a 2? Well it has a better torque curve than a VW and makes more top end torque, useable horsepower to 6700+, maybe we should make 5 categories and make the 142E a 4.
Glad I don't make these rules.

[Catch22]

And I'm still bothered that we have cars that HAVE been through the process that still don't "fit" within it.

Guys, until we resolve this there is no point in doing anything else.
As Ron (I think it was Ron) mentioned earlier, if the ITAC uses the process, but changes the outcome due to some sort of voodoo or bias... Whats the point?

We have more than one problem, and I'm waiting on suggestions for how that gets resolved.
I haven't seen it yet.

[shwah]

You guys are missing the low hanging fruit here.

We have subtractors in the current process in the 50# range, yet we won't look at anything that is less than 100# off. If 198# doesn't make a difference, then why the heck are we pulling weight of in 50s for layout, suspension type, etc? The whole thing is absolutely inconsistent.

Also - the process IS more than a formula, as it sits right now. Whether any of us agree or not, there is an element of subjectivity. I am not sure how I feel about that, but regardless, all we are doing with the 'window' is making it possible for any car that was classed prior to the process to be even further off from whatever the ideal state would be, due to tolerance stackup. Say the process really is only accurate up to 100, well then a car really can be nearly 200 off of ideal simply because it was classed via oija board in 1992 off in the same direction that the imperfect process placed it. So now a car that would be 'perfect' at 2400 (and let me go on record that we will not ever, any time, any way be able to arrive at the theoretical perfect weight for a car with any method other than 'by accident'), came out of the process at 2495, was classed before at 2575, and will stay that much further from ideal forever.

Remove the obvious additional tolerance error. It is relatively easy to do, and does not preclude refining the process to account for more or different characteristics.

[Greg Amy]

First and foremost, those of you who want the world to be perfect, well, life sucks, and it's going to take a while to get there.

I know you're kidding, Jake, but just to be clear: no one is asking for perfection. The VAST majority of the dissenters are asking for best-faith effort to make all vehicles (certainly at least the ones currently in use!) classified as close to their formulated nominal weight as possible.

It's a real simple request.


...But, no matter what, right now, there isn't a large enough majority on the ITAC that thinks the 100 pound window is [unacceptable]...And THAT is not a best-faith effort. Why would something like this even be up for debate?? It's inconceivable to me - and, no doubt, the vast majority of the people reading this right now - that someone, anyone, could outright believe that "within 100 pounds" is "acceptable"!!!

Why? Give me a good reason. Hell, give me a BAD reason...!!!

I can think of only three reasons why someone would not want to adjust a vehicle within 5 pounds:

1) They don't believe in the process, and for whatever reason they believe they, themselves, know what's better for the category than everyone else (The Marie-Antoinette syndrome);

2) Laziness. They don't want to take the time or be "bothered" with such trivial activity;

3) They recognize that they may have a significant advantage in their own competition, and re-adjusting cars may remove that.


If none of these, then what?

This is not rocket science, dudes!! And, frankly, if you're not willing to do this, then I do not have enough faith in you to be a member of a committee that directly affects my discretionary income, as well as that of my racing peers.

Apologies for being blunt, but "get it done, or get outta there".


I suggest that the best approach is the market driven approach.Agreed. It's reasonable, it's "do-able", and it makes sense.

OK, so here's the funny part: so we write a letter to the CRB. First thing the CRB's gonna do is toss it to the ITAC. Who's going to meet on it. Then vote it down (as in, if you ain't got the votes now, you're screwed).

Here's how to "fix" this, and I'm willing to bet a dollar to a donut it ain't gonna happen: "out" the members of the ITAC that are against this ideal. Sending letters to the ITAC isn't gonna get the ITAC to change its mind, but consistent, logical pressure on the resistors, in person, at the track, will.

Or, if that makes you nervous, tell us here (like we can't infer it from the posts in this topic :shrug: ) if you're "for" it, so we can guess who's against it.

C'mon, do it: tell us who you are.

The rebellion grows...

[Ed Funk]

^ what he said!! Shit or get off the pot! Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!

This is a CLUB not a effin dictatorship! Be a man and come out of the damn dark and tell us how you vote.

The above is directed at the ITAC

[ekim952522000]

I agree with Greg

On a related note how about a website that list all the cars in IT with their current weights and the math of how they got to them in the process, or it can say if they have not been ran thru it yet?

That way members would have a place to see how the weight was came to, and would have the ability to check and make sure it was fair compared to other cars? I would be willing to do this if the information would be provided to me?

[JoshS]

Why? Give me a good reason. Hell, give me a BAD reason...!!!

I'm on record as an ITAC member who feels that **IF** the goal is ultimate consistency between listings, then we need to redo all of the cars in the ITCS in one big effort, and not do them onesy-twosy like we do now.

But here are some reasons not to do it:

1) It's a TON of work. We all have day jobs.
2) Members/Racers will inevitably bitch if their car gets heavier. I know that there are many IT racers here on these boards who have the integrity of the process at heart, but there are MANY MORE out there who will just see their weight get higher and won't be very good with that.
3) There will be adjustments to many, many listings. The population out there (including all of the people on this forum) are going to micro-analyze them, compare one car to another, even more than they do now. It's going to cause a firestorm of controversy and nit-picking the likes of which we have never seen. It's likely that as many cars would get heavier as would get lighter. It just moves things around a little, but doesn't really change the big picture. Is it worth it to do that when most people agree that things are really pretty good right now, even if there are a few inconsistencies?

[Ed Funk]

Josh Sirota, CA
Kirk Knestis, WV
Marshall Lytle, VA
Andy Bettencourt, MA
George Roffe, TX
Jake Gulick, CT
Lee Graser, TN
Les Chaney, NC
Bob Clark, WI

there are the names of the ITAC, how about each of you guys weigh in, soon, tells us how you vote and why. If you can't "man-up" to your beliefs, then maybe you should step down.

See sig!

[Z3_GoCar]

Doing this blindly (just running every car through the process) is going to screw up S and A. I agree it needs to be done, but if you do it without a better accounting for torque you are asking for trouble.

In A, the E30 325e is going to LOSE weight despite making extraordinary torque numbers, and it's already a front runner.

In S, my car presently makes 160 whp and 198 wtq. I am expecting that to go up with a full tilt fuel injection IT build with fuel computer (Haltech), perhaps significantly. If it is run through the process at 133 stock horsepower with even a 100 lb adder for torque, it is going to lose significant weight.

Before we run all cars through the process, we need to sort the torque issue first. This (torque) is a bigger problem in A and S because there are more cars with significant spreads between hp and torque.

And I do not believe a power number is the fix since it does not account for useable power band (see above). But some of the smart folks here I hope can come up to something that is a reasonable compromise.

I would argue that torque at the flywheel is irrelevent, what matters is torque at the wheels. But because final drive gearing is open, we have little control of it. That's why hp and not torque is the important number, it take into accout both torque and rpms. Now if we really wanted to do this right so that power is evenly matched to weight, we'd run a program to predict the ultimate power from an IT build for each motor classed in IT. Then there'd no longer be any guessing that motor A makes 25% more while motor B only makes 15%. The problem is most of the information needed ( cam profiles any one? ) is harder to come by than the torque curve.

[Catch22]

It would seem to me that certain ITAC members are urging us to write many many letters because certain other ITAC members are hiding behind the "The membership doesn't WANT us to change this." tree.

Honestly, there are likely a few people in the club that hold that position, but I'm guessing its a very small number and those folks currently enjoy an advantage under the current format (loose usage of that term).

So write letters requesting that All IT cars should be speced with a goal of getting within 5lbs of their process weight.

Simple.
Will it work?
I dunno. But some people are giving us a really big hint, so lets take it.

Write your letters. Get your friends to write their letters and have them tell their friends to write them. I'd suggest copy/pasting what I wrote in bold above and sharing it with everyone so things don't get convoluted to the usual "His car whips my ass because its too light" level. That won't accomplish a damned thing.

My letter is in.

[Ed Funk]

OK, there's a vote by Josh to "process" the whole bunch.

Josh Sirota, CA votes for
Kirk Knestis, WV
Marshall Lytle, VA
Andy Bettencourt, MA
George Roffe, TX
Jake Gulick, CT
Lee Graser, TN
Les Chaney, NC
Bob Clark, WI

[ekim952522000]

........All IT cars should be speced with a goal of getting within 5lbs of their process weight. ......

Sending mine now. Someone should start a thread over at the SandBox telling everyone to do the same.

[Catch22]

I'm on record as an ITAC member who feels that **IF** the goal is ultimate consistency between listings, then we need to redo all of the cars in the ITCS in one big effort, and not do them onesy-twosy like we do now.

But here are some reasons not to do it:

1) It's a TON of work. We all have day jobs.
2) Members/Racers will inevitably bitch if their car gets heavier. I know that there are many IT racers here on these boards who have the integrity of the process at heart, but there are MANY MORE out there who will just see their weight get higher and won't be very good with that.
3) There will be adjustments to many, many listings. The population out there (including all of the people on this forum) are going to micro-analyze them, compare one car to another, even more than they do now. It's going to cause a firestorm of controversy and nit-picking the likes of which we have never seen. It's likely that as many cars would get heavier as would get lighter. It just moves things around a little, but doesn't really change the big picture. Is it worth it to do that when most people agree that things are really pretty good right now, even if there are a few inconsistencies?

Those are excuses Josh.

1. You'll get all the help you need on the math and the research. Just ask and promise that you'll USE the data collected.
2. Tough. If the same process is applied evenly and fairly to everyone, there is no legitimate bitch. There will surely be bitching, but you can't use that as an excuse to maintain the status quo when the status quo is clearly incorrect.
3. No. If you make the process clear and transparent, and apply it fairly and equally to everyone. Then bitching and nitpicking is just that. Bitching and nitpicking.

Right now the bitching and nitpicking is valid, and as an ITAC member its your job to invalidate it.

Its research and math with a little subjective opinion to figure out the HP multiplier (what percentage to use). But if you can SHOW you made a good faith effort to get it as close to right as can be reasonably expected... Job well done.

Right nowits just a mess that makes sense for some and is nonsensical for others. You MUST fix that.

[Z3_GoCar]

It would seem to me that certain ITAC members are urging us to write many many letters because certain other ITAC members are hiding behind the "The membership doesn't WANT us to change this." tree.

Honestly, there are likely a few people in the club that hold that position, but I'm guessing its a very small number and those folks currently enjoy an advantage under the current format (loose usage of that term).

So write letters requesting that All IT cars should be speced with a goal of getting within 5lbs of their process weight.

Simple.
Will it work?
I dunno. But some people are giving us a really big hint, so lets take it.

Write your letters. Get your friends to write their letters and have them tell their friends to write them. I'd suggest copy/pasting what I wrote in bold above and sharing it with everyone so things don't get convoluted to the usual "His car whips my ass because its too light" level. That won't accomplish a damned thing.

My letter is in.

Simple it's not, because no one knows how all the different motors now classified respond to a top notch build and if there might be a way to make more. Right now the hp gain on an IT build is a swag, there's no way to get weight assigned to a 5lb window when the output isn't accuratly predictable. I think the classic example is the Chevrolet Monza with a 3.8l Buick V6, stock hp 136. This is an ancestor to the ITR Camero motor that makes 190hp. But no one know what the Monza will do with a good build because no one's running one, so needless to say it's not been touched.

[ekim952522000]

....
2. Tough. If the same process is applied evenly and fairly to everyone, there is no legitimate bitch..............

This is the reason I think a place (website) we could all go to to review the math and the process for each car would be great.

Does anyone else think this would be a good idea?

[Ed Funk]

Sub-committees: might be a good idea if the ITR sub-committee has no ITR drivers, and the ITC sub-committee has no ITC drivers, just to try to eliminate the temptations.:shrug:

That is assuming that anyone with power thinks that sub-committees are a good thing to spread the work around.

Yeah, Josh right now it is "pretty good", which is in my opinion another term for adequate. Adequate doesn't cut it in my job, does it in yours?

[JeffYoung]

Adequate cuts it a lot better than all farked up.

Guys, this is a noble idea. But what it is going to do is set off a crapstorm of debates over:

1. Whether the Civic EX gets a 10% IT gain or a 15% one.

2. Whether MY ITB car has worse aero and should get a 50 lb subjective deduct.

3. Your ITA car has a "really good suspension." 100 lb adder!

I do agree that how we got to where we are now was not perfect. Basically, the process was applied to (a) popular cars and (b) problematic cars to set a basic balance for the class, and either via plan or just blind luck it worked. It was certainly more likely to work on a smaller universe of cars, than the multitude that populate the ITCS.

Does anyone really see an overdog in any one particular class? I sure don't.

This thing is a great idea, but it's going to go off the track quick and some of you guys who are all united in it are going to be at each other's throats over 10 lbs here or there before it is over.

Me, my low revving, high torque is going to lose a bunch of weight since the process doesn't deal with its ilk very well, so I'm checking out.

[Catch22]

Jeff, to say that the current situation is acceptable is saying that a 198lb weight disparity in ITC is OK and acceptable.

Is that acceptable?

I don't think it is. I think its a deal killer.

I'll say it one more time... Just because we are better off than we were 5 years ago does NOT mean we are "fixed." We are in fact a loooong way from fixed.

So when you are already broken, its worth the risk to try to fix it when the only downside is breaking it (breaking it more?) The payoff is potentially "fixing" it.
Wow... Imagine that.

Again, perfection is not attainable. Ain't gonna happen.
But the reasoning behind why every car is speced where it is should be explainable, reasonable and defendable. Currently that is very much NOT the case.

Example:
"Why is car A speced at xxx weight?"
"Well, it has a stock hp rating of xxx, we gave it a 25% IT prep HP adder, added xxxlbs for double wishbone suspension and subtracted xxlbs for lack of tq." "That resulted in the spec weight of xxxxlbs."

Currently, you can try to give an answer like that, except sometimes when you are done you still have 90, 100, 120lbs you can't explain. Sometimes you can't explain it even when you do maximum adders for everything.

That simply has got to go. Its still the old voodoo weight specing of the old days if you can't use math and a fair process to explain the whys and hows.

[shwah]

Jeff - how is that different from every single new car classification from now on?

What is different about cars that were on the books before and inside the 200# wide window?

I'll keep prepping my car and myself to be competitive against the cars that benefit from the status quo, but there are anomolies out there, succeeding at the highest levels with stock, untouched short blocks because of it.

Don't worry people will complain no matter what happens. It's the one thing we can count on. One more reason to offer thanks to every one of the ITAC and CRB members when you can for doing what they do, and getting a crap sandwich in thanks most of the time.

[lateapex911]

Well, you guys know where I stand, and if you don't well, you're thick, LOL (Or you aren't willing to read the reams I write. )

I'm not going to "out" my fellow ITACers for several reasons.

1- I didn't write down the votes. (Sorry, towing back from testing, in the fog, entering 20 digit access numbers every time service dropped over the 3 hours between Watkins Glen and Monroe Ct was dangerous enough,) but..I was pissed, that's for sure! (So much so I made a few calls the next day to see if my comments were out of line)

2- They have their reasons. Perhaps I don't know them. Or they couldn't explain them in a way I could understand. So, they need to speak for themselves.

But, it's likely you all won't get each one to discuss it, because many have jobs, families, etc, and don't spend the hours internetting.

HOWEVER..I will say that each IS concerned with the membership, and THAT's why I keep saying, "Write in". They'll get the idea. I promise.

I also categorically reject the idea that anyone is voting purely out of self interests. Heck the one guy that votes no on things that might affect him in a bad way, votes "No" on everything, LOL. (and he's actually not in a position currently for anything to affect him directly anyway) I really have to think hard to the time he voted yes on something. And it's good to have dissenting opinions on things, as it helps you see other points of view. Others have initially voted "no" on things like my ECU initiative, then come back, after doing their own research, and voted "yes". Theres a reason we have guys on the ITAC from varied geographical areas, classes, and economic involvement, and that is that it represents the club at large.

There ARE good reasons not to do every car. You may think it's easy to come up with all the numbers, and do the work, but it's not. And that alone isn't a good reason, but when you're doing that work for cars that don't run, it can get silly, and with limited resources, we need to hit the big issues. Like attending to other requests and issues. Just coming up with the Great Realignment list needed multiple con calls that went from 8PM until 2 Am.

Also, a car that gets it's weight upped by 10 pounds, is a rather oddball car, owned by an oddball driver ends up being tossed by tech when he's 8 pounds underwieght next year, because he missed the announcement. (I know, it's hard to imagine, to us, that everyone isn't getting ITAC updates on their i Phone 3G, but... ;) ) (and yes, everyone is responsible for keeping up...)

There are cost associated with all changes. Dr K can come up with a few as well, I bet...

[Ed Funk]

I appreciate what the ITAC does, I appreciate all the volunteers in the club. I even appreciate my elected reps in DC, and I can find out how they vote on pretty much every issue that I'm interested in. I do not understand the need to have votes that are non-published, or a "process" that even after a few hours of hitting the search button, I can't find. is there a reason we can't have published in a clear format the "process"?
And, please, saying that it's here isn't helpful. We either have a process that the majority can understand or we have a mess.

[JeffYoung]

Chris, Scott, I can't strongly disagree with what you have written. And don't, other than I just see the "running every car through the process" to be a nightmare exercise that will result in a lot of crap flinging over the subjective portions of the process. Comparing that to where we already are......I'm not sure I see the overall benefit, but at the same time, it may be necessary pain for us to go through.

This is from someone who's car will probably lose 200 lbs if the process is strictly applied to it.

[nsuracer]

Is it fair to have a class of cars that have not been spec'd by the same process? Is it fair that a member in good standing has to go thru the nut roll of writing letters in order to get his car properly weighted?

There have been several volunteers to help (myself included). Perhaps after running all thru the process nothing much changes. BUT.....Perception is reality and the current perception is that it is not fair.

[shwah]

Chris, Scott, I can't strongly disagree with what you have written. And don't, other than I just see the "running every car through the process" to be a nightmare exercise that will result in a lot of crap flinging over the subjective portions of the process. Comparing that to where we already are......I'm not sure I see the overall benefit, but at the same time, it may be necessary pain for us to go through.

This is from someone who's car will probably lose 200 lbs if the process is strictly applied to it.

At minimum I would expect every car run through the process today, whether new classification or requested review, would be classed at process weight.

I cannot for the life of me figure out what differentiates those cars from all the others in your mind though.:shrug:

[JeffYoung]

Because it is easier to do. A new car is a clean slate. Run it through and class it -- that is what gets done. Can take a while (see ITR V8s) due to arguing about subjective factors though.

What I'm scairt of is trying to do this with 300 cars. At once. To me it is just as likely that in all the noise that debate will generate -- and there will be a ton of it, all kinds of "me" noise -- we are going to fark things up as much as "fix" them.

[gran racing]

is there a reason we can't have published in a clear format the "process"?

Is the process the ITAC uses at least documented enough so that new people who come onto the ITAC board would have a solid understanding how cars are classed, and come to very close weights (not meaning within 100 lbs)? I have to imagine you also need to provide documentation to the BOD on what process is being used, no? If not, these are issues that need to be addressed now.

I imagine some of the process documentation is a bit rough, but it sure would be a good exercise for your group, future groups that eventually take your positions, and to fellow Improved Touring racers. I recognize that some things in the process may involve subjectivity, but even then you can give a brief summary of what you're looking at and how it could impact the classification. <waiting for Kirk to reply with a detailed list :) >

[JeffYoung]

Generally speaking it is:

stock horsepower X expected percentage gain in IT trim X target power to weight ratio for the class + subjective adders (or subtractors)

I only know the target pw/weight for ITS off the top of me head: 12.9.

So, for my car, currently classed at 2560, the process is:

133 x 1.25 (25% is the default expected gain) = 166 x. 12.9 = 2144!

2144! Let's add in the max adder for torque (100 lbs) and ignore the live rear axle, front struts and drum brakes.

2244! Or, 316 lbs less than process weight. You'd think I'd be leading the charge here.....but I'm not. Why? Because the process wasn't designed to fix EVERY problem, just the glaring ones.

If we are going to apply the process to every car, we are going to have to do serious tweaking to it to avoid major crapisasters.

[shwah]

Because it is easier to do. A new car is a clean slate. Run it through and class it -- that is what gets done. Can take a while (see ITR V8s) due to arguing about subjective factors though.

What I'm scairt of is trying to do this with 300 cars. At once. To me it is just as likely that in all the noise that debate will generate -- and there will be a ton of it, all kinds of "me" noise -- we are going to fark things up as much as "fix" them.

Then just start with the top 5 active cars in every class.
When they are done do the next 5 active cars in every class.

Still don't see why this is as hard as you are making it out to be. The 'me' noise will be there regardless, is there now, so it is a non-factor.

You only mention new classifications here - since they do go through cars that are requested for review, why not act on those with 5# accuracy as well?

[1stGenBoy]

Josh Sirota, CA
Kirk Knestis, WV
Marshall Lytle, VA
Andy Bettencourt, MA
George Roffe, TX
Jake Gulick, CT
Lee Graser, TN
Les Chaney, NC
Bob Clark, WI

there are the names of the ITAC, how about each of you guys weigh in, soon, tells us how you vote and why. If you can't "man-up" to your beliefs, then maybe you should step down.

See sig!

I'm against it at this point but IF someone supplies all the "VTS" sheets and factory shop manuals that the GCR requires for all the cars that there are none for I, will change my thinking and we can run the process for all those cars and see where they line up. As was pointed out earlier there are way to many cars that we have limited information on. Many of these were classed long before any of us were involved.
I'm quite comfortable with the 100lb issue as are others on the ITAC.
Just remember we ADVISE and do not make the rules. That is the CRB's job. Yes, they take our imput and usally go along with our line of thinking. One example of when they did not was the BMW restrictor. The ITAC was against it but the CRB went ahead with it.
As was pointed out before we, are volunteers with day jobs and race also. Not everyone can be and expert on every make and model car. The ITAC has a very good mix of people that each know a lot about certain car makes and have a good general knowledge also. The committee is very evenly balanced out in this respect.
Another point to think about is that I have personally asked several people that post here if they would be interested in taking over for me when I step down. Not one has said they would. Just my 2 cents worth and I'm sure I'll regret even posting this. I gave up on posting awhile ago after getting flamed way too many times... Will see what happens here......

Bob Clark
SCCA IT Advisorary Committee