Feb Fastrack

[Andy Bettencourt]

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

[seckerich]

Probably the best fastrack I have read that actually explains most of the decisions made. Big thumbs up to CRB and BOD at better communication.

[RSTPerformance]

ITA

1. #381 (Evan Darling) Review ITA E30 BMWs
In 9.1.3, ITA, BMW E30 318is (88-91), change from 2600 lbs. to 2430 lbs.

ITB

1. #378 (Todd Engelman) Reduce weight of the 320i
In 9.1.3, ITB, BMW 320i 2.0 (77-79), change from 2510 lbs. to 2340 lbs.


How was this allowed? I thought it was against the rules to change the weigthts?

Raymond

[Xian]

Sounds like the "formula" was re-run on them under the Errors and Omissions allowance? The really odd thing is that I thought the BOD put the kibosh on this recently...

Christian

[spnkzss]

I'm kind of confused. At the beginning they are talking about wanting feedback and item #471 is GCR and Vintage CR changes. They want to mandate any car with a log book registered after 1/1/11 have a fuel cell? Is that just a Vintage thing or a full GCR thing. It may be too early in the morning and not enough caffeine yet, but is that how others read it as a full GCR thing?

[quadzjr]

"ITB – (Multiple) Review ITB weight of MR2
The car is classed appropriately."

"IT – #236 (Grafton Robertson) December weight reduction violates ITCS
Thank you for your input. The weight was not a competition adjustment; it was a correction because an error in the initial
classification was found."

The MR2's weight was was an error that was agreed upon. Do they actually think that the motor can make 30%? I mean in 25 years years they think that not a single person made an attempt? I know of two guys that have over 10k each in there motors and netneir is making 25%. So on top of that we get another 50lb adder for balance? you don't think that balance is affected when you classify the car nearly 20% more than the factory weight?

I wish I got more than the traditional response.

[Z3_GoCar]

That's a real shame Steve, and I feel for you and anyone else in the same situation. What worked for me was a direct request for what issue I wanted to considered, why I thought it should be considered, and supporting evidence. Then once I submitted it, if it was denied I was preparing myself for the "not advisable at this time" response. The web-based tracking worked well and kept me informed of who was considering my request. Maybe you can submit it again in a few months.

[zracre]

not against the rules if the weights were off...The 318is (88-91) needed this to be anywhere near competitive. I still do not know if the car will be competitive as even with an IT build it will be slightly down on power compared to its competition (taking aero and other factors into consideration i.e suspension design etc). But at least it is closer and maybe more will be built now as it is a viable option. The E21 (2.0) at its weight should be good as well and they just need to follow suit with the E21 1.8 now. Considering the VW GTI 1.8 (both C.I.S) weights and power gains compared to the BMW version they are getting closer.

[JeffYoung]

You guys PM me and I'll tell you what I know. The CRB has asked that we not hash some of this out in public, but will tell you what I know privately.

[Knestis]

Sounds like the "formula" was re-run on them under the Errors and Omissions allowance? The really odd thing is that I thought the BOD put the kibosh on this recently...

Christian

Prior to my leaving the ITAC, we were explicitly told that adjustments precisely like were applied in these two cases were in violation of the GCR. The term that was floating around conversations among committee members was that we "got our hand caught in the cookie jar."


The CRB has asked that we not hash some of this out in public, but will tell you what I know privately. ...

And you are now officially part of the problem rather than the solution, Jeff. Welcome to the Secret Car Club of America. If there's information you can share one-on-one with anyone who will ask - IT'S PUBLIC. If it's PUBLIC, it should be hashed out, uh, IN PUBLIC.

What utter crap.

K

[JeffYoung]

I won't delete the below, but screw it, it's wrong. Kirk is right, at least on the fact that this stuff should be discussed in public.

Here's where things stand. Note that I do not think the CRB is out to screw IT, etc. I just think we have a disagreement on some basic principles with the CRB in general, and on this car in particular. They are:

1. GENERAL: When can we apply errors and omissions to correct car weights? The CRB's position on this now seems to be that they will allow fixes to "gross" mistakes (my word, not theirs). There is no real definition of what triggers this.

2. GENERAL: The CRB does not like the use of stock hp in the process.

3. GENERAL: The CRB does not like the 25% default IT gain multiplier we use.

4. SPECIFIC: The CRB thinks that 16V motors have the potential for more than 25% gain, and also that there is no reason to change the weight on this car as it was just classed in ITB last year (? year before?).

The ITAC's position is simple. The car may make 25% at best, and the classification at the higher weight was an error.


*******************

Or, the "problem" is that good folks give up the fight at the first sign of trouble.

But I digress.

I agree that most of this stuff should be discussed in public. There are some things about the MR2 that are in the grey area for me as to whether internal committee discussions -- it was heated -- should be made public.

The board we report to has asked that we not disclose this stuff on the internet boards right now. I am willing to abide by that for now, and at the same time tell people who ask what I know. I see that as the lesser of two evils, the other evil being that we have an ITAC with NO members on it that believe in the process, etc. I agree that's not logically consistent, but it is the best I can do right now.

I do think it is an entirely fair question to ask of the CRB, and discuss in public, why errors and omissions adjustments were made to some cars, even after we were told no.

[Knestis]

Or, the "problem" is that good folks give up the fight at the first sign of trouble. ...

The first sign of trouble for me happened in about 1981, Jeff. I made the mistake of believing we'd learned from the past almost 30 years. Call this past summer "Kirk's LAST sign of trouble."

K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, you are right about one thing -- the technical aspects of this should be discussed in public. I changed my post above, based solely on yours. I realzed you were right.

But, and I wish we were talking face to face over this, I really wish you had stayed on the ITAC. I know you have a lot of years of frustration with the SCCA, and that builds over time. I've been there. Committee work does that.

But I am now convinced that there was a lot of miscommunication and just misunderstanding that led to the dust up between the ITAC and the CRB last year. I think the situation is very fixable, and I think you could have been a big part of the fix.

[chuck baader]

Dammit Evan....now I'm going to have to build a motor and loose the weight just to see which is faster:026::026::026: Chuck

[Ron Earp]

I won't delete the below, but screw it, it's wrong. Kirk is right, at least on the fact that this stuff should be discussed in public.


Glad that you caught the error of your ways with Kirk's assistance. This is a club, by members for members. Members, including committee members, should be able to discuss what they wish as it pertains to the racing classes that they, and we, John Q Public, participate in.

[GKR_17]

The ITCS is very clear that the weights of the cars are not to be changed except under very strict circumstances. Jake's post (now deleted) seemed to say that the 'error' corrections wouldn't apply except for 'recently' classed cars. So the ITAC chose not to run every car through the process the first time (which wasn't legal either), and now they're fixing errors? I've seen a lot of weights changed, and none of it complies with the rules in my opinion.

At least before the 'process' no one was pretending that this system wasn't political. Back to business as usual.

[gran racing]

Committee work does that.

I don't belong to an SCCA committee and feel plenty annoyed and frustrated with the antics. So will the CRB at least have the balls to print "we won't allow these weights to be adjusted under this one rule although we've done it in the past"?

I know...:dead_horse:

[Greg Amy]

Ow. My head hurts.

[Ron Earp]

The ITCS is very clear that the weights of the cars are not to be changed except under very strict circumstances.

The ITCS reads:
"Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car,
and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C,
are not allowed."

"On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing
performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may
reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or
in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such
an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within
the vehicle’s class."
Does the GCR mean rare (unique) such as the Tuskunga Event, or rare in the case of six toed cats? It simply says on rare occasions, and after reviewing a few things, then the weight may be revised and/or a vehicle reclassified. Rare is sort of subjective to the eye of the beholder isn't it?

Now that bold italic part might be a problem since that spells out only for equity purposes. Doh.

[JeffYoung]

This is a problem. The weight change wording in the ITCS is clear, but doesn't match up with what is being done in real life.

The CRB has pointed us to a procedures manual that allows errors and omissions weight corrections, but that is not in the ITCS and it should be.

While I think fixing weights on cars via the process is "right," I agre with Grafton it is technically "wrong" per the ITCS. Something needs to be fixed, or at least openly published.


The ITCS is very clear that the weights of the cars are not to be changed except under very strict circumstances. Jake's post (now deleted) seemed to say that the 'error' corrections wouldn't apply except for 'recently' classed cars. So the ITAC chose not to run every car through the process the first time (which wasn't legal either), and now they're fixing errors? I've seen a lot of weights changed, and none of it complies with the rules in my opinion.

At least before the 'process' no one was pretending that this system wasn't political. Back to business as usual.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The MR2 issue is simple in my mind. We re-ran it under the errors and ommissions clause (which is in CRB documentation). The CRB denied the request based on their belief that it was correctly classed on the 30% multiplier. Simple.

As to any other change (like the RX-8), those corrections were submitted based on improper numbers being used. The ITCS language is specific to what happens when you see abnormal on-track performance. Not the case here. I would hope that people are flexible enough to know that mistakes or misprints can happen and we should have a mechanism to fix them.

Our definitions of 'competition adjustments' are also different from person to person. To me, its a change made based on what you see on track...and we do not do that except like the ITCS says, on rare occasion.

[seckerich]

Just one comment here:

I personally and many others here raised hell at the CRB and BOD for taking away the only process we had in IT for getting to fix some of the misclassed/outclassed cars. We got the answer that nothing was to be looked at. Then they said only cars 5 years old or less. Because of more time to cool off and look at the bigger picture they are showing a willingness to look at some of these cars. If you are sitting pretty now and have a good classification this is bad news and you bitch. If your car was not fixed this time around you bitch. Lets try working with the CRB a little before you go out and hang them. I got so pissed at some of this last year I about sucked the fun out of my racing. I will not make that mistake again. Take a deep breath Kirk and have some fun again.:D

[JeffYoung]

Exactly. Except for guys like Grafton, there is no erros and omissions clause because they don't get to see it.

Should be published or in the ITCS......


The MR2 issue is simple in my mind. We re-ran it under the errors and ommissions clause (which is in CRB documentation). The CRB denied the request based on their belief that it was correctly classed on the 30% multiplier. Simple.

As to any other change (like the RX-8), those corrections were submitted based on improper numbers being used. The ITCS language is specific to what happens when you see abnormal on-track performance. Not the case here. I would hope that people are flexible enough to know that mistakes or misprints can happen and we should have a mechanism to fix them.

Our definitions of 'competition adjustments' are also different from person to person. To me, its a change made based on what you see on track...and we do not do that except like the ITCS says, on rare occasion.

[steve b]

The MR2 issue is simple in my mind. We re-ran it under the errors and ommissions clause (which is in CRB documentation). The CRB denied the request based on their belief that it was correctly classed on the 30% multiplier. Simple.

As to any other change (like the RX-8), those corrections were submitted based on improper numbers being used. The ITCS language is specific to what happens when you see abnormal on-track performance. Not the case here. I would hope that people are flexible enough to know that mistakes or misprints can happen and we should have a mechanism to fix them.

Our definitions of 'competition adjustments' are also different from person to person. To me, its a change made based on what you see on track...and we do not do that except like the ITCS says, on rare occasion.

I'm one of the new kids on the block, so fill me in. What 30% multiplier? I have been under the impression that it is a 25% multiplier. I know some cars have a 30% multiplier but I thought that arose from "on track performance". No such performance has been witnessed of an MR2.

When the car was in ITA, we were trying to prove that the car didn't gain 25%. Now we are assumed to be making 30%?

What was the power gain assumed in "the process" when the car was in ITA? Wasn't it 25%? Did the "B" stickers give me 5% more gain that I don't know about?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm one of the new kids on the block, so fill me in. What 30% multiplier? I have been under the impression that it is a 25% multiplier. I know some cars have a 30% multiplier but I thought that arose from "on track performance". No such performance has been witnessed of an MR2.

When the car was in ITA, we were trying to prove that the car didn't gain 25%. Now we are assumed to be making 30%?

What was the power gain assumed in "the process" when the car was in ITA? Wasn't it 25%? Did the "B" stickers give me 5% more gain that I don't know about?

When the car was in ITA, it was classed using methods unknown and not documented. There are a ton of cars on the ITCS that fall under this category. The power multiplier is not based at all in on-track performance, no matter what the number. Currently, a standard 25% is used when no actual data is present. Other percentages are used when there is supporting documentation and ITAC members are willing to put there names next to the data.

In this case, the CRB voted that the 30% mutiplier was not in error.

[gran racing]

Lets try working with the CRB a little before you go out and hang them.

The problem is the message and what happens in reality changes. One minute they say it can't be done, next they say it can and approve changes, then no, then yes? Or are we still at no?

While I agree with you Steve that we shouldn't let this impact our racing fun, it's still frustrating to see us take steps backwards.

[GKR_17]

...there is no erros and omissions clause because they don't get to see it. Should be published or in the ITCS......

I agree 100%. If it's not published it's not a rule, period.

There should be a way to correct errors, and we should all know how it works.

[Greg Amy]

In this case, the CRB voted that the 30% mutiplier was not in error.
What evidence was in support of that vote? In other words, why do they think it will do 30% over stock (even though they do not like to base it off of stock)?

I'm smelling a bit of POOMA here..."meet the new boss"...

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Corolla GTS that is getting reclassed to ITB also went through at 30%. Same motor.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What evidence was in support of that vote? In other words, why do they think it will do 30% over stock (even though they do not like to base it off of stock)?

I'm smelling a bit of POOMA here..."meet the new boss"...

Any such documentation is not on the ITAC site. The CRB does not work within the same 'documentation standards' the current ITAC does so if it exists, it is likely not in the same format.

[quadzjr]

The Corolla GTS that is getting reclassed to ITB also went through at 30%. Same motor.

I assume you are talking about the AE-86 corrolla right? I wondered why it was still in A and the MR2 in b.

I will compile as much data as possible, ans should be able to prove without a doubt that the car will not make 25% gains, and it sure won't make 30% gains. I am hoping with this new build I am in the process right now to make around 17% gain.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I assume you are talking about the AE-86 corrolla right? I wondered why it was still in A and the MR2 in b.

I will compile as much data as possible, ans should be able to prove without a doubt that the car will not make 25% gains, and it sure won't make 30% gains. I am hoping with this new build I am in the process right now to make around 17% gain.

Because it was never requested. I did the request proactively.

[jjjanos]

I agree 100%. If it's not published it's not a rule, period.

And sometimes when it's published it's not the rule either.

Check out the proposed and approved change to the wording of 3.1.7 of the Sporting Regs (May 2009 and December 2009 Fastracks).

Now look at what is in the GCR.

[steve b]

When the car was in ITA, it was classed using methods unknown and not documented. There are a ton of cars on the ITCS that fall under this category. The power multiplier is not based at all in on-track performance, no matter what the number. Currently, a standard 25% is used when no actual data is present. Other percentages are used when there is supporting documentation and ITAC members are willing to put there names next to the data.

In this case, the CRB voted that the 30% mutiplier was not in error.

I wonder what the supporting documentation was that determined the 30% was not in error. I wonder how well it would have supported the SAME arguement had I presented it...

"Dear CRB, last year you reclassed the MR2 into ITB and used a 25% gain when calculating the minimum weight. I race against MR2s and I feel this is too low. The MR2 has a 16v engine and we all know that the Honda 16v engines make 30%. Please recalculate using a 30% gain and add 95 pounds to the MR2."

Do you think that would have worked, or do you think they would have asked me to provide documention of a Toyota engine making 30%?

I will offer up my engine if they care to modify it to achieve a 30% gain for their documention.

[Knestis]

The worst possible scenario - if the goal is a repeatable, transparent policy process - is in place when the decision-makers can invoke the same "rule" as permission to do something, or a prohibition against it, both with equal vigor. Change the operational definition of a word or two, and you can re-purpose any given policy to do whatever you want - if you're in charge. If you're NOT - or are not favored by those who are - you potentially get screwed by inequitable application of the rule.

Right now - IN PRACTICE - what we have is, "The CRB can do any damned thing it wants with Model X," and defend it with some twist of the written word. That's precisely what the Process (RIP) was intended to prevent. And before someone chimes in that the process (lowercase 'p') is still being used, I mean the Process as defined for systemic, repeatable, transparent review of race weights.

K

[Knestis]

Just one comment here:

I personally and many others here raised hell at the CRB and BOD for taking away the only process we had in IT for getting to fix some of the misclassed/outclassed cars. We got the answer that nothing was to be looked at. Then they said only cars 5 years old or less. Because of more time to cool off and look at the bigger picture they are showing a willingness to look at some of these cars. ... Lets try working with the CRB a little before you go out and hang them. ...

Sorry, Steve. If it was a contravention of the GCR to do it in August, then it's still not legal in January. The CRB needs more than "willingness" - they need codified permission. Otherwise, it's just a willingness to break a rule.

We DID that for a long time, with the CRB's and BoD's tacit approval. That should not be allowed to happen again. If they want to allow changes beyond what is specifically allowed by the ITCS, they need to be clear about how/when/why they they can happen.

I have the same definition of "competition adjustment" as Andy but the rules don't say what CANNOT be done to re-specify IT car: It says what CAN be done.

K

[Eagle7]

Who is the ITAC liason? The SCCA site says Peter Keane, but it doesn't list him on the CRB membership. I see one of my local guys is now on the CRB. I'll have to bend his ear at the track.

[RSTPerformance]

The worst possible scenario - if the goal is a repeatable, transparent policy process - is in place when the decision-makers can invoke the same "rule" as permission to do something, or a prohibition against it, both with equal vigor. Change the operational definition of a word or two, and you can re-purpose any given policy to do whatever you want - if you're in charge. If you're NOT - or are not favored by those who are - you potentially get screwed by inequitable application of the rule.

Right now - IN PRACTICE - what we have is, "The CRB can do any damned thing it wants with Model X," and defend it with some twist of the written word. That's precisely what the Process (RIP) was intended to prevent. And before someone chimes in that the process (lowercase 'p') is still being used, I mean the Process as defined for systemic, repeatable, transparent review of race weights.

K

Agree 100%

How did the ITA E30 318is and ITB 320i get a weight change over the MR2? I don't get it?

Raymond "Trying extreamly hard not to get sucked in and ruin another year with SCCA" Blethen

[lateapex911]

Chris Albin is on our calls. He has an ITB Golf. Peter Keane was on the CRB, he's moved to the ITAC now. Bob Dowie, chair of the CRB is on all our calls as well.

Regarding the MR2, here's the history, cliff notes style.
Back in the day, none of us were on board, they classed it in ITA. Not sure if quantum physics or grain alcohol was used. That's all water under the bridge now.
We (the ITAC ) got numerous requests, and debated many aspects of the car for a move to B.
We moved it to B.
Sidebar: The Process, in an early incantation, used 30% for 4 valve cars. That was amended to 25%, but 30% is/was used when evidence dictates it is needed. Certain 4 valve cars make 30% gains over stock.
There was some confusion on one con call and 30% was used erroneously.

That resulted in the car racing at that weight for the last season or so.

We recommended a new weight on the MR2, and other cars using the same engine, based on 25%.
The CRb rejected that, they feel that we classed it at 30% only a year ago, and see no reason to change it.

The majority position within the ITAC is that it should be corrected. A minority thinks it's fine. The CRB feels it's fine.

We have new evidence and will try again.

[RSTPerformance]

"Regarding the MR2, here's the history, cliff notes style.
Back in the day, none of us were on board, they classed it in ITA. Not sure if quantum physics or grain alcohol was used. That's all water under the bridge now"

Correction Jake... When the MR2 was classed it was at the front of the field in Northeast anyway. It was NOT a class killer but it was classed somewhat OK... The CRB/ITAC really started screwing things up after that when they destroyed what was ITA and classed a ton of cars in ITA that were much faster than a typical ITA car but slower than ITS. Instead of fixing the gap between ITS and ITA we stalled, classed cars wrong (even had restrictors) and then added ITR which is not much different (yet) than ITS... Now we are have the gap between the new ITA and the old ITB... ITB will be destroyed by the ITAC and CRB over the next 3 years because no consistancy will be used to figure out how to class cars correctly. 3 years from now ITB cars will get reclassed into a non existant ITC bringing the class back from the dead in a new form and maybe we will actually have 5 good classes of racing...

Time will tell!

Raymond "Sadly the Audi will be to slow for ITB and to Fast for ITC and the 80's era of Audi's slowly die off and will be out of our lives for good!" Blethen

[MMiskoe]

Currently, a standard 25% is used when no actual data is present. Other percentages are used when there is supporting documentation and ITAC members are willing to put there names next to the data.



So Andy, why is the 300zx in ITS at a 30% multiplier? It is not a 4 valve car, nor is there any indication that the 30% is correct based on measured amounts. Or if there are cars that were measured I'd be curiuos to talk to the guys that own these cars.

This is aimed at the point that the process is not transparent, never has been, it has always been subjective. The difference is that now not only is it not only not transparent but it appears that the CRB isn't bothering to listen to what the members are asking for.

But on the other hand in the northeast there are few choices on who to go racing with. So in March we'll pay our entry fees and continue to show up and go race. What else are we to do. In two years we'll bring our HANS devices.

[Knestis]

...There was some confusion on one con call and 30% was used erroneously.

That resulted in the car racing at that weight for the last season or so.

We recommended a new weight on the MR2, and other cars using the same engine, based on 25%.
The CRb rejected that, they feel that we classed it at 30% only a year ago, and see no reason to change it. ...

We have new evidence and will try again.

Jeebus.

If there's room for something called "Errors and Omissions," one would think that "We were dumbasses and used the wrong number by mistake in a committee call in April 2008, and would like to fix it" would qualify.

We started making noise about that mistake inside the ITAC literally 20+ months ago.

But as far as "new evidence" goes, there's no provision to consider it. If there is, someone explain how and why, and based on whose decision.

In public, for the membership.

K

[JeffYoung]

There is not a "public" one. There is something we have been quoted in a CRB "operations manual" of some sort that allows E&O corrections. But I agree, there is nothing in the present ITCS that would allow it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Andy, why is the 300zx in ITS at a 30% multiplier? It is not a 4 valve car, nor is there any indication that the 30% is correct based on measured amounts. Or if there are cars that were measured I'd be curiuos to talk to the guys that own these cars.

This is aimed at the point that the process is not transparent, never has been, it has always been subjective. The difference is that now not only is it not only not transparent but it appears that the CRB isn't bothering to listen to what the members are asking for.

But on the other hand in the northeast there are few choices on who to go racing with. So in March we'll pay our entry fees and continue to show up and go race. What else are we to do. In two years we'll bring our HANS devices.

The process has ALWAYS been somewhat subjective. Never sold as anything but. Documentation is the key now. On your motor, there are a ton of builders who specialize in that motor, including Rebello. IIRC, GRM did a test on Upchurch's car at MO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Correction Jake... When the MR2 was classed it was at the front of the field in Northeast anyway. It was NOT a class killer but it was classed somewhat OK...

Correction: It LOOKED LIKE it was classed 'ok' because ITA wasn't yet popular enough to have the likes of Mechanic Shop North, Kessler Engineering, SBMS and Flatout building high budget machines.

[StephenB]

Correction: It LOOKED LIKE it was classed 'ok' because ITA wasn't yet popular enough to have the likes of Mechanic Shop North, Kessler Engineering, SBMS and Flatout building high budget machines.

Newbi. :) ... honestly

[tom91ita]

What was the power gain assumed in "the process" when the car was in ITA? Wasn't it 25%? Did the "B" stickers give me 5% more gain that I don't know about?

the "B" sticker gave you 5%? i guess i should count my blessings. :blink:

the first gen crx si had a factor of 1.51 when in ITA (back calculated from the old ITA weight of 1980#'s) and now in "B" i only have a factor of 1.41 for my 12 valve head. or maybe i could you trade you my 41% for your 30%?

maybe we both need to hire the Keane as our engine builder to find these gains?.........:023:

i am still kind of bummed that my 1488 cc honda 12V "B" engine in my crx gets a 41% mulitiplier and the Keane 1955 cc honda 12V "B" engine in the accord gets the default 25% multiplier. i still don't understand those differences.........

but in all seriousness, in November of 2009, i re-submitted my request for a car diet after some emails with a CRB member because there was a misconception by some on the CRB that the 85-87 crx si had been through "the process" when in fact they were simply assessed a 150 # adder when moved to B.

does the fact that my request is not addressed in FT mean that it is still be reviewed or should i consider it to be lost in the shuffle. i do not recall it being in a FT since then.

[jjjanos]

There is not a "public" one. There is something we have been quoted in a CRB "operations manual" of some sort that allows E&O corrections. But I agree, there is nothing in the present ITCS that would allow it.

And isthat operations manual public? IIf not, it damn well should and needs to be.

[RSTPerformance]

Correction: It LOOKED LIKE it was classed 'ok' because ITA wasn't yet popular enough to have the likes of Mechanic Shop North, Kessler Engineering, SBMS and Flatout building high budget machines.

If any of those cars were classed then, then I stand corrected. From my memory when the newer cars were classed and those very good teams built those cars the class changed and a new class was born that replaced the old ITA (the one that even saw RX-7's near the front!). It really doesn't matter but I don't think you can blame the CRB that originally classed the MR2, they did a better job than the current ITAC or CRB has done with the car/class.

The current CRB and ITAC needs to stop playing the political crap by blaming things on past memebers, you are the current members class the cars right and forget about the past.

Honestly I hope that in 3 - 5 years SCCA will have things figured out and/or another option opens up in the Northeast. Until then I will try not to get sucked back in and just have fun racing and going back to the days when it was just fun being out on the track!

Raymond "bye Coco" Blethen

[lateapex911]

ITA changed, IMO, when the CRX was classed. I'm not sure that there even WAS an ITAC back then. It is known to have an artificially low HP rating, and it was a winner right out of the box. That was 92 or 93 or so. The bar was raised. After that, we in new England saw some top notch efforts. And some clearly illegal efforts. (a certain car driven by a funny man's son, perhaps?)

At the time, there was no changing of weights allowed. So, in order to keep ITA from becoming a one car class, other cars were added at the CRX level. Then the ECu issue reared it's head, and 'chips' were allowed, then ECus in the stock boxes. That raised the CRX game even further. (and not just the CRX).

All this occurred before the 'current' ITACs watch.

Then Darin, and Andy, and some others joined. I sent a proposal to then chair Rick Pocock to allow weight changes, with a structured review system. Rick left, and Darin took over, and a system of classing cars, and adjusting weights was pushed through. One of the first changes was a reevaluation of the CRX, taking into account the stock hp issue, and the increased performance available to it via post classification rules changes. And other cars got the same attention. (Also for similar reasons)

That action sought to restore class equity to the greatest degree possible, while avoiding competition based weight adjustments. The changes were made based on empirical factors. It was NOT rewards weight.

Raymond, if the system hadn't been created, where do you think we'd be today?! you speak of ITA changing drastically, and, to a point, you're right, the bar has been raised. BUT, without the new Process being instituted, where would we be today? Well, obviously, ITA would be faster. The CRX would never have gotten a correction, and cars entering the class would have done so at levels comparable to that. So, ITA would clearly be even faster.

I don't see where anyone here is blaming the past. The MR2 was classed before our time, and the CRX et al were added before our time. The whole system wouldn't exist if the past problems didn't exist. I'm not blaming anyone, it just is what it is. But it's important to know how, and why we got where we are. Or we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.


....you are the current members class the cars right and forget about the past.

Really, Raymond, we're trying to class the cars correctly.

We recommended to the CRB that the MR2 be corrected to a weight that is in line with the 25% standard, (we used the wrong math when it was reclassed) and it was rejected. We recommended that it's sister, the AE86 be moved to ITB at the process weight which also uses a 25% factor. On that car, they moved it, but added 95 pounds.

Why? I can't tell you.


What I CAN tell you is that the car makes 112 stock crank. That's 95 at the wheels. General consensus has the built power around 110 at the wheels, or, converted, 126 crank. I have never seen any evidence that supports the below numbers.

25% predicts 140 crank, or 119 wheel
30% predicts 145 crank, or 123 wheel.

The ITAC has bent over backwards trying to create methods that are consistent, rigorous, documentable, fair, robust, repeatable and transparent. It's safe to say that many of us are frustrated with the fact that the hard lifting has been done, but the fruit isn't forthcoming.

[cjb25hs]

What I CAN tell you is that the car makes 112 stock crank. That's 95 at the wheels. General consensus has the built power around 110 at the wheels, or, converted, 126 crank. I have never seen any evidence that supports the below numbers.

25% predicts 140 crank, or 119 wheel
30% predicts 145 crank, or 123 wheel.

The ITAC has bent over backwards trying to create methods that are consistent, rigorous, documentable, fair, robust, repeatable and transparent. It's safe to say that many of us are frustrated with the fact that the hard lifting has been done, but the fruit isn't forthcoming.

The neon is kinda of the same way. The SOHC motor responds to higher IT build HP gains then the DOHC. But the DOHC car gets the 200lb weight penalty. The weights for the neons should be closer to 2400 SOHC and 2500 DOHC. NASA only puts a 50 lb difference on the cars at 2500 SOHC and 2550 DOHC when spec neon still existed.

[Charlie Broring]

ITA changed, IMO, when the CRX was classed. I'm not sure that there even WAS an ITAC back then. It is known to have an artificially low HP rating, and it was a winner right out of the box. That was 92 or 93 or so. The bar was raised.

I think this is currently happening in ITB with the VW MK3 and the 1955cc Honda's. The MR2 would be a class winner in the old ITB racing against 2002's and A2 Golfs but possibly an underdog against the newly classed faster ITB front runners. The CRB sees a problem but they don't fully understand it and they appear to lack confidence in the ITAC recommendations. Mixed and conflicting rules are the result.

In a perfect world the ITAC and CRB would communicate and work together. A slight adjustment would be made in the classification process in ITB. The resulting adjustments would be well received by the IT community. Competition would be well balanced in all classes. Everybody would be so happy...

[Knestis]

Over a couple of months last spring and early summer, the ITAC was told by representatives of the CRB, that...

1. There was no way that a big pile of cars were going to get "run through the process" because the promise that the (not so) Great Realignment was a one-time-only deal was crucial to getting it done in the first place

2. We should prepare a comprehensive "re-do" of ITB as a pilot of our processes and practices - spent a lot of a couple weekends and burned up other members' time digging up data on THAT one, lemme tell ya.

3. That ANY after-the-fact changes to race weights of cars was verboten by the ITCS, beyond the very limited window provided by the verbiage added during the (ns)GR.

K

[quadzjr]

What I CAN tell you is that the car makes 112 stock crank. That's 95 at the wheels. General consensus has the built power around 110 at the wheels, or, converted, 126 crank. I have never seen any evidence that supports the below numbers.

25% predicts 140 crank, or 119 wheel
30% predicts 145 crank, or 123 wheel.

The ITAC has bent over backwards trying to create methods that are consistent, rigorous, documentable, fair, robust, repeatable and transparent. It's safe to say that many of us are frustrated with the fact that the hard lifting has been done, but the fruit isn't forthcoming.

I am compiling data right now to hopefully help the ITAC convince the CRB that the large port toyota 4AGE will not make those gains, in IT legal prep. They expect that in the 25 years the car has been raced NOBODY spent the money to try to make the power in there racecar?

There isn't a single Race engine builder that can get 30% with an IT legal motor 4AGE LARGE PORT motor that came in the mk1 MR2. Our 92 civic ITB car puts down mower power the wheels with an 800 dollar rebuild than my multiple thousand dollar MR2 build.

Hell you can buy a TRD header for the car it gain a whopping 0 hp!:rolleyes:

[jjjanos]

Over a couple of months last spring and early summer, the ITAC was told by representatives of the CRB, that...

1. There was no way that a big pile of cars were going to get "run through the process" because the promise that the (not so) Great Realignment was a one-time-only deal was crucial to getting it done in the first place

2. We should prepare a comprehensive "re-do" of ITB as a pilot of our processes and practices - spent a lot of a couple weekends and burned up other members' time digging up data on THAT one, lemme tell ya.

3. That ANY after-the-fact changes to race weights of cars was verboten by the ITCS, beyond the very limited window provided by the verbiage added during the (ns)GR.

K

Am I missing something? Seems to me that objective 1 and objective 2 are mutually exclusive.

[mossaidis]

Just filed my first CRB request asking for weight equality between 92-95 Civic EX and 92-95 Civic Si. I have no idea why they are off by 25 lbs when then cars are identical except for the wheelbase and body style.

[Bill Miller]

I'm curious, what power factor (25% or 30%) was used when the Corolla FX16 was moved to ITB? It has the same 4A-GE motor that the AW11 MR2 and the AE86 Corolla have.

[Knestis]

Am I missing something? Seems to me that objective 1 and objective 2 are mutually exclusive.

LOL - As is typical, you missed nothing.

:026:

I was on numerous ITAC calls addressing the 1.6 twincam Toyota cousins, including the one where we dorked up the multiplier on the MR2 - that is, literally plugged in the wrong number. We tried very hard to get them all aligned since one stink test applied by members is that of internal consistency - do cars that bring the same factors to the equation net out at predictable, comparable weights...? (EDIT - there's obviously been some additional conversation since I left.)

K

[lateapex911]

LOL - As is typical, you missed nothing.

:026:

I was on numerous ITAC calls addressing the 1.6 twincam Toyota cousins, including the one where we dorked up the multiplier on the MR2 - that is, literally plugged in the wrong number. We tried very hard to get them all aligned since one stink test applied by members is that of internal consistency - do cars that bring the same factors to the equation net out at predictable, comparable weights...? (EDIT - there's obviously been some additional conversation since I left.)

K

Actually, 1, 2 AND 3 are very much in contrast with each other.

The 3 or 4 cars sharing the same drivetrain were processed by the ITAC recommended to the CRB for changes. They all used the same factor. One was rejected, another approved, (Corolla) but with altered math. I can't tell you what the math alterations and breakdown are though.

[JeffYoung]

I'm pretty sure it was done at 30% in error too. There are some who believe all 16v motors should be at 30% by default, apparently regardless of what the dyno sheets say.


I'm curious, what power factor (25% or 30%) was used when the Corolla FX16 was moved to ITB? It has the same 4A-GE motor that the AW11 MR2 and the AE86 Corolla have.

[irondragon]

Seems to me that ITAC listens to requests for change, and then sends a decision on to CRB.
CRB's process is opaque and impenetrable. Their decisions are rendered and that's that. No further input from members wanted! And don't even try an e-mail.

Matt's reference to the HANS decision is right on target.

So what's going on? Who decided that SCCA was to be a top down dictatorship when it comes to members asking for explanations?

In a time of quick and easy communication, this situation is unjustified.

Seems similar to France in the late 1790's - and they had a real revolution.
Let's start bringing the tumbrils to the False Grid.

Bill Miskoe

[JLawton]

Just filed my first CRB request asking for weight equality between 92-95 Civic EX and 92-95 Civic Si. I have no idea why they are off by 25 lbs when then cars are identical except for the wheelbase and body style.


25 lbs?? You're kidding, right? Why are you dickin' around for 25 lbs?


.

[Knestis]

I feel strongly that 25 pounds, while not enough to be more than lap-to-lap human error noise for a typical club racer, is enough to be meaningful from a organizational point of view. If two cars are the same based on the criteria, they should weigh the same. If we allow them to be 25 pounds different then why not 50? 100? 300? There's right and there's all of the other options and as long as we are OK with "other," we leave room for shady crap, or the appearances and accusations of shady crap.

K

[Bill Miller]

I feel strongly that 25 pounds, while not enough to be more than lap-to-lap human error noise for a typical club racer, is enough to be meaningful from a organizational point of view. If two cars are the same based on the criteria, they should weigh the same. If we allow them to be 25 pounds different then why not 50? 100? 300? There's right and there's all of the other options and as long as we are OK with "other," we leave room for shady crap, or the appearances and accusations of shady crap.

K

That's pretty much it Jeff. If they go in w/ the same specs, they should come out w/ the same specs. Really has nothing to do w/ how trivial 25# is.

[lateapex911]

yea, as far as I'm concerned, take the request, punch the numbers, recommend the outcome. Then the CRB does what they will with it.

It's not for me to say, but I imagine they wouldn't be thrilled with that recommendation. From the ITACs point of view, it then becomes a question of political capital. The CRB has shown an "end result" point of view...does 25 pounds matter on the track??

The ITAC looks more at the process and being consistent and letting the chips fall where they may. If they fall way out of line, it's time to examine the process, and figure out what's going awry., and if needed, adjust the process as the analysis shows.

But that's, I think, a difference in the bodies philosophy.

So yea, submit it, but....

[Flyinglizard]

25# is a tenth of a second on a 16 sec. lap with our minstock.
It does matter enough to bitch when the racing gets close. Ask any front running SM guy , what his car weighs after the race. Mine is 6# over, If it is 8#, I made a mistake. MM

[JLawton]

I feel strongly that 25 pounds, while not enough to be more than lap-to-lap human error noise for a typical club racer, is enough to be meaningful from a organizational point of view. If two cars are the same based on the criteria, they should weigh the same. If we allow them to be 25 pounds different then why not 50? 100? 300? There's right and there's all of the other options and as long as we are OK with "other," we leave room for shady crap, or the appearances and accusations of shady crap.

K

I was coming more from a stand point that there are sooo many cars out there that are far out of whack, are we just going to clog up the process by submitting peanuts? Yes, I will be one of the first to actually admit that I am being self serving because my car is off by 100+ lbs.......

[lateapex911]

I think your letter was read, considered and the recommendation was sent up the line by the ITAC,,,

[mossaidis]

I feel strongly that 25 pounds, while not enough to be more than lap-to-lap human error noise for a typical club racer, is enough to be meaningful from a organizational point of view. If two cars are the same based on the criteria, they should weigh the same. If we allow them to be 25 pounds different then why not 50? 100? 300? There's right and there's all of the other options and as long as we are OK with "other," we leave room for shady crap, or the appearances and accusations of shady crap.

K

Thank K.

Jeff, I am not being petty in the least bit. You know I have lots to change to my car before I become a front runner... overbore, shocks/springs, FD, spherical bushings, re-tune, (my) balls, etc. I am simply, and in my own little world, pointing out a potential discrepancy/flaw. My request (though with some grammatical errors given it was written late night) asked the fundamental question of why the difference and my request to adjust weight. I sit in my office 9-7 everyday and I don't have the resources or time to prove you or CRB that a ported CRX has a 41% IT gain vs. MR2's 10% gain OR even look at other civic models outside my years of expertise. Once my car is in full IT trim, I would more than happy to submit a dyno and configuration sheet to the ITAC in which in inform them that my car has reached its max in terms of hp/weight.

In the meantime, hugs kisses and Teresa says hi. We'll see you in June at LRP, unless you pay us a visit in NYC. :) Mickey

[mossaidis]

25# is a tenth of a second on a 16 sec. lap with our minstock.
It does matter enough to bitch when the racing gets close. Ask any front running SM guy , what his car weighs after the race. Mine is 6# over, If it is 8#, I made a mistake. MM

I am NOT bitching... I have asked why is there a discrepancy and if it's not justified to simply correct it. It might mean that the CRB/ITAC increases the Civic EX weight by 25. I can care less which may they go.

The lot of you should be looking for other discrepencies, justifity your reasons and submit them to the ITAC/CRB for review. This is how the process works and they only way it will change - small steps in "corrective evolution".