Review and adjust weight of ITB CRX Si as appropriate

[tom91ita]

EDIT to restore paragraphs:

CRB Letter Tracking Number #1333

ATTN: SCCA BOD, CRB, ITAC, ImprovedTouring.com May 11, 2010

I would like to make note of an error and/or omission in the assigned weight of the 1985-87 Honda CRX Si (as well as the 1986-87 Honda Civic Si). I am requesting that these weights be properly and actually evaluated. In the specific case of the 1985-87 CRX Si, this car was originally classified as ITA and was given an arbitrary 150 pound addition when it was reclassified as ITB. This weight is inappropriate compared to cars with similarly designed engines in the class as you will soon see.

One basic premise of IT classing takes into consideration certain aspects of power to weight and/or displacement to weight ratios. For example, ITB has used a factor of 17 pounds per horsepower and ITA has used 14.5 pounds per horsepower. This basic formula can be illustrated as follows for ITA:

Stock HP X HP Multiplier X 14.5 #/HP – 50 #’s (if FWD) + 50 #’s (if double wishbone type suspension)

However, there is a rather wide range when it comes to the Horsepower Multiplier. This is in large part due to the wide range of assigned horsepower ratings by the original manufacturers. However, if one looks at the IT expected Horsepower calculated from the assigned weights in the GCR, one can see that similar engine architecture results in similar specific horsepower ratings.

Four Cylinder - 16 Valve Engines

Four popular 16V cars are the 1988-91 Honda CRX Si, Acura Integra, 1.8L Mazda Miata (all ITA cars with the 14.5 #/HP factor) and the 1988-91 Honda Civic DX (ITB & 17 #/HP factor). These cars have the following Horsepower Multipliers (calculated from the GCR and published stock HP ratings).

Horsepower Multiplier = (GCR Weight + FWD adjustment – Suspension adjustment)/(Stock HP)/14.4

Honda CRX Si = (2250 +50-50)/108/14.5 = 1.4368
Acura Integra = (2595 + 50 -50)/140/14.5 = 1.2783
Mazda Miata = (2380+0-50)/133/14.5 = 1.2082
Honda Civic DX = (2240 +50-50)/92/17 = 1.4322

I think the above represents a rather wide range of Power Factors. However, if we consider what the HP per Liter is for the above, we see that the 16V engines all provide close to the same specific HP per Liter.

Honda CRX Si = 1.4368 x 108 / 1.590 Liters = 97.59 HP per Liter Estimated in IT Trim
Acura Integra = 1.2783 x 140 / 1.834 Liters = 97.58 HP per Liter Estimated in IT Trim
Mazda Miata = 1.2082 x 133 / 1.839 Liters = 87.37 HP per Liter Estimated in IT Trim
Honda Civic DX = 1.4322 x 92 / 1.493 Liters = 88.25 HP per Liter Estimated in IT Trim

The IT Trim specific output of the 1.6L CRX and the 1.8L Integra being essentially identical is not that surprising since the 1.8L is effectively a scaled up version of the 1.6L. Also, although the Honda Civic DX is significantly less than the other Honda based 16V engines, it should be noted that this is not surprising considering the car has a dual point injection system instead of the multipoint injection system.

If you prefer to look at the Integra and CRX in terms of #’s per CC, you will again see that they are essentially equal; (Integra = 1.411 #/cc and the ITA CRX is 1.415 #/cc).

Four Cylinder - 12 Valve Engines
There is a limited sampling of 12V cars in Improved Touring. However, there are three distinct engines and they are all Hondas and all in ITB. These are the 1986-89 Honda Accord, the 1986-87 Honda Prelude and the 1985-87 CRX Si. These cars have the following Horsepower Multipliers (calculated from the GCR and published stock HP ratings).

Horsepower Multiplier = (GCR Weight + FWD adjustment – Suspension adjustment)/(Stock HP)/17

Accord = (2550 +50-50)/120/17 = 1.2500
Prelude = (2450 + 50 -50)/110/17 = 1.3101
85-87 CRX Si = (2130+50-0)/91/17 = 1.4092

Again, the above represents a rather wide range of Power Factors. But what is rather unusual about this is that these engines are from a single company and have very similar architecture with the exception of the compression ratio.

So what does the HP Multiplier and IT expected HP work out to for these similar engines that are nearly scale versions of each other work out in terms of IT Trim Estimated HP per Liter?

Accord: 1.25 x 120 / 1.955 Liters = 76.73 HP per Liter Est. in IT Trim Comp Ratio of 9.3
Prelude: 1.3101 x 110 / 1.955 Liters = 73.71 HP per Liter Est. in IT Trim Comp Ratio of 8.8

The Prelude, with its lower Compression Ratio, has a slightly lower specific output. So how does this compare to the 85-87 CRX Si which has a lower CR still?

85-87 CRX Si: 1.4092 x 91 / 1.488 Liters = 86.16 HP per Liter Est. in IT Trim Comp Ratio of 8.7

So the 85-87 CRX Si with a CR of 0.6 less than the Accord is purported to make 12% more power per liter. Also, the 85-87 CRX Si 12 valve engine is purported to make HP/Liter ratios similar to the better breathing 16 valve engines.

If you look at these cars in terms of weight per displacement they are not consistent as well:

Accord: 2550/1955 = 1.30 # per cc
Prelude: 2450/1955 = 1.25 # per cc
85-87 CRX Si: 2130/1488 = 1.43 # per cc

Please note that the12V ITB CRX Si is saddled with more weight per cc than the last three ITA ARRC Champions. And the 12V ITB CRX Si also suspension limitations in that it has front torsion bar springs and a rear beam axle compared to the wishbone style of the other Hondas and Integras.

I believe that the power potential and power to weight factors of the newer and improved 88-91 Honda CRX Si were inadvertently applied to the 85-87 when it was moved from ITA to ITB. Because of this error, the weight should be reviewed as an error/omission.

If the ITB CRX were classed like the Prelude at 1.25 #/cc (after all, the CRX CR is even less than the Prelude), the CRX should weigh 1860 #’s. This means the CRX would be 270 #’s overweight.

It should be noted that I have been told privately that I am tilting at windmills with this request because there are certain ITAC members (and/or former CRB member) who either race the Accord or who race against the CRX that will prevent my car from ever having the weight classified fairly. I, however, think that this should not impact the fair review of the car. But because of this perceived potential, I would very much appreciate a technical reason as to why the CRX 12V motor combination is rated so differently than the other Honda 12V ITB cars.

I do not consider the standard style explanation of “Car is appropriate as Classed” to be an appropriate answer.

Thanks,

Tom

[Chip42]

reasonable well written, a fair argument with good use of supporting data, even though it is all from the GCR. the demonstration of the ITA miata and ITB Accord having advantageous multipliers, particularly when compared against similar architectures in the same class is quite revealing. good thing those 2 cars aren't power houses in their classes ;)

FWIW, though, the ITA teg 1.8L is NOT simply a scaled up version of the 1.6L in the CRX, but the point isn't lost on me.

good luck.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Tom,

While you certainly have the Miata calculation wrong (and I am not sure why you use architechtures in OTHER classes to prove your ITB example), I like the stratagy given the current climate.

However, please tell us what you believe a full-blown motor of your genre would put down to the wheels. Remember, we had Catch's data on file and I have some dyno data locally as well...

Take that number, divide by .85. Multiply by 17 and take away your 50lbs for a close representation. I estimate your car needs to make 109whp to be at process weight.

I HATE HATE HATE the like architecture method. The extreme example is the 2.0L 16V Nissan 140hp motor out of the SE-R vs. the 2.0L 16V 240hp motor out of the S2000. Does teh CRB really think we should be using the same multiplier for both??? If not, don't fall on your sword during con-calls...:(

[Andy Bettencourt]

reasonable well written, a fair argument with good use of supporting data, even though it is all from the GCR. the demonstration of the ITA miata and ITB Accord having advantageous multipliers, particularly when compared against similar architectures in the same class is quite revealing. good thing those 2 cars aren't power houses in their classes ;)

FWIW, though, the ITA teg 1.8L is NOT simply a scaled up version of the 1.6L in the CRX, but the point isn't lost on me.

good luck.

The Miata is based on 1.25 on 128hp and has been dabted many times. It also has 10lbs of slush weight added as well. The Accord is also spot on 25% and those who know the numbers know that is a VERY accurate depiction.

Is it possible the 1.5L Honda's are good at tight nimble tracks while the cars with a good bit more HP and weight are better at the big tracks? I bet the newer 160HP Civic Si is a screamer in ITA on the big end.

[tom91ita]

i tried to use the 16V's in ITA to demonstrate that there is not much difference between multipliers or #/cc even between makes. at least there is less difference there between different cars than between the 12V hondas.

is the crx more nimble on the small tracks? probably. does the accord have an advantage at championship quality tracks? probably.

frankly i was surprised by the ITA CRX and Teg having essentially exactly #/cc ratios to the 3rd decimal point.

the ITB CRX and Accord are rated from Honda at almost exactly the same power per liter, 61.2 vs. 61.4 HP/Liter respectively.

before i blew my built motor, i did not have it dynoed and have decided to not build another until i get an answer for this. i can't argue your number of 109 because i just don't know.

i also want to try and get a real response and not just the "car good as is" approach because i think there has to be real and rational reason.

[Chip42]

Andy - I don't want to debate my feelings regarding the current state of classifications in IT in someone else's topic. if tom was wrong about the miata, then so be it - I have no dog in that hunt, and I feel that there are at elast a good handful of cars that can take it to the mazdas in ITA, so i'm not particularly worried about it (though it IS a very strong car being more than the sum of its power to weight ratio and established HP output). The 20A accord LXi/SEi, spot on or no, IS a VERY strong car in class - there are a small number of cars that can run with it, some are track dependant, some are not.

the point, however, is not if a miata or accord are spot on, it's why other cars are so far from spot on, as to make the "correct" cars better. The overall classifications appear pretty good in ITR/S/A, but in B they are all over the map. the 1st gen CRX, anything with a toyota 4age, 240 volvos, etc.. are all woefully overweight AND THAT CAN BE DEMONSTATED AND PROVEN just as the confirmation of an accord being "spot on" was.

I simply want to see the field classed a bit more equitably, so I applaud Tom for adding his efforts - the weight loss is deserved and hopefully will be granted. as you point out, the simillar engine architecture debate is not as cut and dry as simple displacement and valve count per cylinder. But we continue to use things like 130% for 16v cars in B when it's demonstrably incorrect and not relevant to Tom's inquiry. I know you left the ITAC, I bet you had issues with the CRB. maybe they were based on the above, maybe not. but the classification mysteries drive me nuts, and I intend to ramp up my efforts as a member to have them clarified.

oh, and the ITA 99-00 civic Si thing I DO have a stake in. agian, I don't want to debate, but that classification is, in my oppinion, a bad idea at that weight. I've already submitted a letter to the CRB and ITAC about it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i also want to try and get a real response and not just the "car good as is" approach because i think there has to be real and rational reason.

Well I am telling you the real and rational reason (accurate or not). When this car was reviewed with the Process the ITAC used from 2005-2009, it was estimated by the Honda experts on the committee that 109-110whp was achievable given a full-tilt legal build. Those numbers were then send upward through the process spitting out your 2180-50= 2130.

(I disagree with the following) The Process in ITB for 16V cars is a standard multiplier of 30% and 25% for all others when no power numbers are known.

The bottom line for you Tom to wrap your head around this fact: There is no rhyme or reason to the power numbers other than this: If you don't know the actual numbers, 25% is used most of the time. If you DO know power numbers, the ITAC tries to use them as accurately as possible. Just taking stock HP numbers and using those in your math is spinning your wheels because that number is just the BASE number and really isn't what is placed into the equation.

Where I do like your arguement (although you won't get anywhere if you have no data to dispell the 109-110whp) is that the CRB has started using like architecture. Look for 12V motors with similar cc's to compare with.

I can tell you that more than 1 ITAC/CRB member at the time this went to 2130 thought it was going to ruin ITB.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy - I don't want to debate my feelings regarding the current state of classifications in IT in someone else's topic. if tom was wrong about the miata, then so be it - I have no dog in that hunt, and I feel that there are at elast a good handful of cars that can take it to the mazdas in ITA, so i'm not particularly worried about it (though it IS a very strong car being more than the sum of its power to weight ratio and established HP output). The 20A accord LXi/SEi, spot on or no, IS a VERY strong car in class - there are a small number of cars that can run with it, some are track dependant, some are not.

My point was simple, don't use different architetures from different classes to prove a point.


the point, however, is not if a miata or accord are spot on, it's why other cars are so far from spot on, as to make the "correct" cars better. The overall classifications appear pretty good in ITR/S/A, but in B they are all over the map. the 1st gen CRX, anything with a toyota 4age, 240 volvos, etc.. are all woefully overweight AND THAT CAN BE DEMONSTATED AND PROVEN just as the confirmation of an accord being "spot on" was.

The 1st Gen CRX can be debated on it's accuracy. Like I said above, the classification was based on 'actual' numbers, not estimates. Hardly an anomoly in the ITCS.


I simply want to see the field classed a bit more equitably, so I applaud Tom for adding his efforts - the weight loss is deserved and hopefully will be granted. as you point out, the simillar engine architecture debate is not as cut and dry as simple displacement and valve count per cylinder. But we continue to use things like 130% for 16v cars in B when it's demonstrably incorrect and not relevant to Tom's inquiry. I know you left the ITAC, I bet you had issues with the CRB. maybe they were based on the above, maybe not. but the classification mysteries drive me nuts, and I intend to ramp up my efforts as a member to have them clarified.

The Toyota issue was certainly one that led to my frustration and resignation. An unwillingness to do the right thing on that car was and is, unacceptable. Proving a negative is very hard but with all the data, this car should not have been classed at anything over 25%. ITB has the most 'legacy cars' that people care about. The other main issue I had with the CRB is the unwillingness to accept and implement changes based on the Process. Right or wrong, at least those numbers would make sense to everyone. And of course the mechanisms were and are there to correct an error should one arise (none in 5 years).


oh, and the ITA 99-00 civic Si thing I DO have a stake in. agian, I don't want to debate, but that classification is, in my oppinion, a bad idea at that weight. I've already submitted a letter to the CRB and ITAC about it.

Agreed. The car can make ITS weight and doesn't belong in ITA.

[gran racing]

Tom, while there are some similarities between the '86 & '87 Honda Prelude si and the 120 HP Lxi, there are certainly differences. In fact, that Accord was run through the process which stated it was spot on weight wise. Then the Prelude was run through the process yielding a different weight than the existing 2,450 lbs: somewhere about 110 lbs less than current weight in fact. Maybe some guys who were on that call could expand upon how that conclusion was made. Oh, they did have numbers from my a pro engine build among other power adder goodies on the Prelude. It was acquired from another source and people can't say I only provided them my second best results.

By the way, the last sentenece in the above paragraph is SO HUGE to me. They can actually explain where the conclusion was derrived from to us.

I did submit the Prelude si to be reviewed a while back. For better or worse, all I wanted was to have that and others to be measured by the same stick. The error & omissions / how it came down from ITA is an interesting approach, one that I had thought of too. Yeah, several cars came down from ITA which if the CRB wanted to they could probably pass under this loop hole if you want to call it that.

I do applaud your effort and think this letter can't hurt. I don't think it solves the issue, and wish more people would be vocal. I'm actually quiet disappointed with how few letters the CRB & BOD received about getting parity within the classes. I know they're sick of hearing from me. LOL

The Civic si - it's gonna be a pig in ITA. I can understand why the requester wanted it in ITA at the heavy weight given the inventory of SSC civics. Just got a Civic si off scales yesterday. 1,721 pounds on the front wheels, 1,044 on the rear (2,765 total). Great.

[Chip42]

The Civic si - it's gonna be a pig in ITA. I can understand why the requester wanted it in ITA at the heavy weight given the inventory of SSC civics. Just got a Civic si off scales yesterday. 1,721 pounds on the front wheels, 1,044 on the rear (2,765 total). Great.

our ITS civic has 28lbs of lead in the floor and weighs 2430 with 200lbs driver and ~1/4 tank of fuel. the difference in cgae weight is ~25-40lbs depending on the tube size / wall used in the larger weight cars vs 1.5x0.095, assuming ~80ft of material. the car can make weight in S, even if it starts as an SSC car.

[Charlie Broring]

It seems to me that ITB has changed in the last couple years. Now it is "ITB Plus". The formula that classified the Accord, and the VW mk3 just isn't consistent with the performance envelope of the older B cars.

Until recently many considered my Volvo 142 an "Overdog" in ITB. Now I hear it is due a weight reduction if run through the "Process" with the current classification formula. I guess the CRB and ITAC let the balance slip in my class.

Maybe correcting the "Process" and reigning in the new hot ITB cars would be a better option.

[gran racing]

As long as the cars are treated equally, whatever process being used is fair, makes sense, explainable. With such a HUGE diversity of cars, budgets, and drive abilites, IT shouldn't be looking towards on-track performance as anything but a trigger to look closer into things. Do these things and that's fine Charlie.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It seems to me that ITB has changed in the last couple years. Now it is "ITB Plus". The formula that classified the Accord, and the VW mk3 just isn't consistent with the performance envelope of the older B cars.

Until recently many considered my Volvo 142 an "Overdog" in ITB. Now I hear it is due a weight reduction if run through the "Process" with the current classification formula. I guess the CRB and ITAC let the balance slip in my class.

Maybe correcting the "Process" and reigning in the new hot ITB cars would be a better option.

Each class had bogey cars that power to weights were set around when the Process was created. New classifications and reclassifications were done using these bogey numbers. From what I hear from ITB experts on the CRB and ITAC, the numbers that were used for the Volvo were based on motors that had some common cheats that proliferated the Volvo's at the time. The IT community got wind of and were reversed. I can't validate any of that but I can tell you that is what I have heard. So the Volvo may be a touch behind number-wise based on that. Just another car to fix that the CRB won't touch.

There is nothing wrong with the Process. Especially now that there are real checks and balances. The CRB just has to let the ITAC USE it. That is what your letters should be saying when you write in.

[JoshS]

There is nothing wrong with the Process. Especially now that there are real checks and balances. The CRB just has to let the ITAC USE it. That is what your letters should be saying when you write in.

Andy is right ... we believe that we have a way to make fair and consistent adjustments to cars, but we can't use it. The basic reason is that the ITAC who presided over the great realignment in 2005 got approval for making changes to weights and classifications, and they did so with the agreement that the adjustments would be a one-time event. There was no sanction for making any changes to already-listed cars beyond that. They went so far as to write language in the rulebook to prevent any future ITACs from doing what they did.

Yes, the ITAC ignored their own rules and agreements for quite a while there, and the powers that be looked the other way for that period. That era has ended, and the rulebook rules the day, as it were. Therefore, these weights are not going to be changed (except for the obvious errors, examples of which I've posted before) unless the rules change, and there's a rule-change process, and we have to follow it.

The uphill part of the rules change battle is that there is a general opinion that IT is in a really good spot right now, even ITB, although maybe there are a few things that aren't perfect. If we REALLY want to go down the road of adjusting everything, there are going to be a LOT of adjustments and our current members who are happy with the status quo (most of whom are not "politically involved" and do not post here) might very well end up unhappy. Those are the people that show up every weekend and really enjoy the racing, not much caring about this hub-bub about weights and processes and politics. I know a lot of those people. Put another way. sometimes fine-tuning something that works pretty well messes it up. It's a risk, and this would be taking a risk with one of the club's best assets. So if you're going to make the argument for such a rules change, please address that concern.

Taking my ITAC hat off and speaking personally now: I'm trying to help and I'm sympathetic. These are the boundaries of our abilities right now. Either make arguments that work within them, or work to expand them. Otherwise, it really is tilting at windmills.

[jjjanos]

Andy is right ... we believe that we have a way to make fair and consistent adjustments to cars, but we can't use it.

You can use it. The CRB won't approve the weights set that way. You've got two options - cave to the foolishness that the CRB has created or put two fingers in the air, classify and correct cars in a manner that makes sense to the ITAC and let the CRB be the bad guy.

The ITAC's job is to classify cars as best as they can. Kowtowing to the CRB on the classification/correction issue isn't doing that and is a disservice to the IT community.

It all depends on whether one wants to play the part of P. Henry or V. Quisling. There really is no middle ground on this.


Therefore, these weights are not going to be changed (except for the obvious errors, examples of which I've posted before) unless the rules change, and there's a rule-change process, and we have to follow it.

Except the so-called rulebook hasn't been followed. The BMW 320i was reweighted, outside the 5-year window and in direct conflict with the official policy of the CRB. You want to explain the reason why the CRB broke their rules on that car and not the others?



The uphill part of the rules change battle is that there is a general opinion that IT is in a really good spot right now, even ITB, although maybe there are a few things that aren't perfect. If we REALLY want to go down the road of adjusting everything, there are going to be a LOT of adjustments and our current members who are happy with the status quo (most of whom are not "politically involved" and do not post here) might very well end up unhappy. Those are the people that show up every weekend and really enjoy the racing, not much caring about this hub-bub about weights and processes and politics. I know a lot of those people. Put another way. sometimes fine-tuning something that works pretty well messes it up. It's a risk, and this would be taking a risk with one of the club's best assets. So if you're going to make the argument for such a rules change, please address that concern.

Things are not fine in all of IT. ITC is dead, though there is little anyone can do about it. (Though, I will note that at least one ITC competitor was told to pound sand when he asked that his car be reclassified in ITB so he would have someone to race against). ITB is starting down the road of spec Golf and the ITAC knows it.

The folks don't care about weights, process, et al won't give a damn if the CRB lets the ITAC fix the problem in ITB.

[JoshS]

You can use it. The CRB won't approve the weights set that way. You've got two options - cave to the foolishness that the CRB has created or put two fingers in the air, classify and correct cars in a manner that makes sense to the ITAC and let the CRB be the bad guy.

Not my style, you need someone else for the job if you want to play us vs. them. I'd rather work together in a fashion that at least works.


Except the so-called rulebook hasn't been followed. The BMW 320i was reweighted, outside the 5-year window and in direct conflict with the official policy of the CRB. You want to explain the reason why the CRB broke their rules on that car and not the others?

From memory, that one met the operational definition of error. It is the same engine as the late 2002, with an effectively identical chassis layout/suspension, and yet it was MUCH heavier than that 2002. The 2002 was considered to be the "correct" listing as it was on the "bogie list" during the realignment, so the 320i was adjusted to match. (It could have been made even lighter to exactly match the 2002, but instead it was adjusted to its process weight, which is pretty close to the 2002, but the 2002 isn't exactly at its process weight either.)

BTW, things were still very much in flux at that time ... but it meets the definition of an error.

[Knestis]

I'm going to Maine, eat lobster, and watch my lovely wife run 26 miles.

K

[gran racing]

Josh, I seriously appreciate your efforts and what you're attempting to do. I do feel that you are doing what you feel is right. I also truly thank you for having the guts and taking the time to post here. Communication is important. Thank you.

All that said, we do have issues in IT and even more so in other SCCA categories. To turn a blind eye saying that things are good here, we'll continue on this way is a pretty weak option. I don't understand why we set the bar to good, or even pretty darn good when we have the tools to make this great. The CRB wants or feels the need to evaluate based upon on track performance. Fine, that MAY work in categories where there are only a few different makes / models. IT is far from that case.

If what Charlie said is true (which I too have wondered if the bar was raised in ITB when the Golf was classed), every single car classed from today on hurts cars previously classed before this new standard was established. Sorry dude, but that sucks. Andy talked about the Volvo receiving a weight based upon cars that were not legal. I'm not saying it's right, but people will feel justified in pushing the envelope in terms of legality which in turn impacts other areas. Oh, there we go again with using on track performance as a weak bench mark.

Don't think that because many other people are silent about all of this they don't care. Why don't they speak up? Not sure and will have to visit the history books to get a better feel for that one.

If the goal of the CRB or the powers that be is to shut people up like me, it's slowly working. Congrats and good luck with the future. Oh gesh, there's SO MUCH irony in all of this.

[RacerBill]

Josh, not being confrontational but you used the phrase 'definition of an error' twice in your last post. Can you tell us what the 'definition of an error' is? It will help if we know what that definition is.

[StephenB]

If what Charlie said is true (which I too have wondered if the bar was raised in ITB when the Golf was classed), every single car classed from today on hurts cars previously classed before this new standard was established.

Don't think that because many other people are silent about all of this they don't care. Why don't they speak up? Not sure and will have to visit the history books to get a better feel for that one.

If the goal of the CRB or the powers that be is to shut people up like me, it's slowly working. Congrats and good luck with the future. Oh gesh, there's SO MUCH irony in all of this.

Yup nothing to say here... well except that Peter and Chris... well nevermind.
Stephen

[StephenB]

Not my style, you need someone else for the job if you want to play us vs. them. I'd rather work together in a fashion that at least works.


Thanks for contributing to everything I HATE about this club. Keep this quote... since the club doesn't vote by popular vote you are actually playing the politics very well. Good luck in your future.

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

Whoa, hang on there Stephen. Josh is working hard to keep things together in a pretty messy time, and we DO need to work with the CRB (and our relationship with them).

The Quisling/Patrick Henry stuff gets really old. This isn't the freaking Revolutionary War. It's a disagreement over how IT weights -- in a CLUB of amateurs doing AMATEUR racing -- should be set. The CRB are not bad folks. They are as committed to the success of IT as anyone.

We are working on the disagreement part. It's not where I want it to be right now, but we are working on it.

And yes, one problem we have is that there is no real definition of error for purposes of adjusting a weight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

From memory, that one met the operational definition of error. It is the same engine as the late 2002, with an effectively identical chassis layout/suspension, and yet it was MUCH heavier than that 2002. The 2002 was considered to be the "correct" listing as it was on the "bogie list" during the realignment, so the 320i was adjusted to match. (It could have been made even lighter to exactly match the 2002, but instead it was adjusted to its process weight, which is pretty close to the 2002, but the 2002 isn't exactly at its process weight either.)


Ugh. Total BS from the CRB Josh. Who in the world cares about HOW you see the mistake, as long as you see it and correct it???? I don't care if it mirros a car that is classed via the Process and is reset as such or you see it's way out of whack via teh Process and is reset. You either CAN or you CAN'T reset weights after a certain timeframe has expired?

Which is it? I respect what you are doing but come on here.

[jjjanos]

Not my style, you need someone else for the job if you want to play us vs. them. I'd rather work together in a fashion that at least works.

1. It isn't "working" as it perpetuates an incorrect set of the world.
2. It isn't working "together" since the system is theirs.

[jjjanos]

Whoa, hang on there Stephen. Josh is working hard to keep things together in a pretty messy time, and we DO need to work with the CRB (and our relationship with them).

Work on the relationship? That's rich. The CRB has said the "relationship" is servile - shut up and do what we want, the way we want it and when you don't, it's still going to be the way we want it.

I fail to see where there is any grey area in which to work. It is very clear to me that there is no possibility of "working with" the current CRB. The only variable that can be altered is the CRB itself, as in how to get it replaced.

There are members of the CRB that have been disingenuous, dishonest and deceitful in their dealings with the ITAC. There is no possibility of reforming that.


The Quisling/Patrick Henry stuff gets really old. This isn't the freaking Revolutionary War. It's a disagreement over how IT weights -- in a CLUB of amateurs doing AMATEUR racing -- should be set. The CRB are not bad folks. They are as committed to the success of IT as anyone.

Well, I would disagree on many counts. There are people on the CRB who by their dishonest actions are bad people. I have doubts regarding their commitment to the success of IT - the CRB suffers from a Runoffs-centric view. As for Quisling/Henry - you either hold true to your convictions or you don't

If one believes in the "process" and disagrees with the displacement view, continuing as an underling for the current CRB equates to being a sellout. There is no hope of changing their world view. The current CRB has made that very clear. I far more respect the act of resignation.

[GTIspirit]

...I estimate your car needs to make 109whp to be at process weight.


Just wondering, is that 109whp on a Mustang Dyno or a Dynojet Dyno? :p

[lateapex911]

That BMW was on the books for a year, it seemed. We did research, called experts. It wasn't easy finding somebody who really knows what the engine is capable of in IT trim. Then it was adjusted and sent to the CRB, and, along with others, it got lost in limbo, as the CRB evidently ruminated on it and other things. When it came out in the wash, we heard, through backchannels that the CRb wasn't happy with the ITAC. Soon there was a "No adjustments decree", and all those limbo cars got rejected.

So, and i know this well, because I was the guy who had to pen the wording of why or what we were doing with them, and trust me, I scratched my head to explain it.....as in WHY we were, suddenly, after 5 years of doing this with the active participation and complicit approval of the CRB, we were suddenly stopping. heck, it's hard to explain when you yourself don't get it. And the statement that we were given a "One time" pass, is BS. That's NOT what I was told on con calls. Those were some of my first con calls, and I took notes for my personal use. In fact, we whittled the list down to the most grievous offenders and were told, "Lets make it a reasonable list, get that approved, then see how the cars do, and how the class reacts before we make more changes," That is NOT a description of a one time never to be repeated adjustment.

There was discussion, of the rules, "errors" etc., and the CRB gave us definitions of "errors". And oddly, those definitions changed from one month to another. I remember calling Andy after one call at midnight asking HIM if he knew what our JOB was, and HOW we were to do it.

THEN the CRB came on the call, post "no more adjustments", and said, "Let's look at that list of cars". To which I replied, "I JUST submitted that phrasing for no adjustments, didn't we print that in Fastrack???". Response was no, they decided not to. Then I was asked what the first car on the list was...I protested further, and was told "Jake, do you want to adjust cars or not? lets get to work". (That's a quote)

And that was that.

So, yea, I have notes about rules and such, but I sure have doubts about the definitions due to nebulous and conflicting explanations, and I certainly think there has been some reversals of direction and tone.

I hated resigning. HUGE regret that it came to that place.

My decision to leave came when the head of the CRB, in discussing the process said, "I have no faith in any Process that uses stock horsepower at its core". (That might not be exact, but i can look thru my notes if anyone wishes, it's very close and accurate in it's gist). I was aghast. As in mouth open. I was the ITAC chair on that call, as Andy was traveling, and I was running the meeting, and i remember thinking, "I have to say something", but I couldn't find words. I mean, what the hell have we been doing for FIVE years? We certainly knew that stock power isn't always right, but we build loops in the Process to handle that, and our history is chock full of exceptions where we dealt with incorrect stock ratings, so I was shocked...it was a statement that basically, put the entire process under doubt, and my follow up questioning confirmed that statement reflected the true thoughts of it's owner. Further, the concept of the "like architecture" got trotted out, and I knew I could not support that, so I was gone, as I felt the cornerstones that we worked so hard and long on had gone out the door.

I wanted no part in that.

Chip, this is for you. I wanted to run with Process v2.0. It's a tremendous piece of work, and is EXACTLY what the category means, and is what the MEMBERS have CLEARLY demanded. I would have been fine with publishing it. More than fine. Over 5 years, it served us well, and we refined it's use and buttoned down some loose ends. And issues with it have yet to really surface.

But, that's behind us now, sadly.

Going forward, any hope of getting IT run in a manner that the members have clearly demanded is going to need two things to happen:
1- the CRB will need to open up to the members and accept their wants and desires. (big picture)...I've mentioned that in con calls, online in discussions with direct replies by CRB members, yet it's never been answered....I think they really need to come to grips with this aspect.
2- The ITCS needs to be rewritten to allow the proper operation of the category.

[tom91ita]

Just wondering, is that 109whp on a Mustang Dyno or a Dynojet Dyno? :p

the dyno type does matter as i have been led to believe.

one reason i also presented the inconsistency based on displacement and compression ratio is because different postings have made that sound like that is the be-all and end-all.

so weight my car based on the #/liter similar to the other cars.

Andy, i apologize if i got the calc method wrong with the miata. i must have been looking at the wrong line on the SCCA spreadsheet posted at SCCA.com for the calculation method.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Upon further reflection, here is what I think should be able to happen WRT weight changes:

1. A mistake is made in the process by observation of the SCCA. Wrong stock HP used, estimate on multiplier too low or too high with documented supporting data, or some other error used when processing the car resulting in a weight too high or too low - per the Process, not on track observation. Reset weight

2. Per written member request on 'unprocessed' cars. Reply back with current Process weight and calculation. If weight fits Process, "Weight appropriate as classified". If not, even by 5lbs, reset per Process, reply with math and document.

2A. There are cars in the ITCS that are red flags. Alfas, Audis, Triumphs, anything from the smog era, etc. These cars may show low stock HP and huge gains in IT trim or have unreliable European hp numbers from different eras. Careful care and patience must be displayed on both sides. ITAC should do reasearch. Member may be required to submit real dyno data and build sheets. All in an effort for a one-off to be classed fairly but to limit the potential for a mistake that disrupts the class.

Again, and this is a BIG again...and I hope the CRB is reading this: There is NOT ONE IT member who I have talked with who doesn't want transparencey and consistancy via a documented successful Process vs. a 'like architechture' and 'I saw it on the back straight' mentality. We are willing to be 'off' by some weight to be able to show people exactly how and why the car weighs what it weighs. THAT is the definition of 'no guarantee of competitivness' to me.

The CRB should be BEGGING the ITAC to submit reworded ITCS language so they can un-shackle themselves from the chains they have put on THEMSELVES that they refused to be bound by from 2005-2009. There is nothing that stops progress faster in life than the mindset that 'things are good now so lets not continue to forge ahead'. Especially when you are limiting the very thing that got you where you are today.

[Andy Bettencourt]

so weight my car based on the #/liter similar to the other cars.



Here is the rub. I don't know anyone except 1 or 2 CRB members that like this method. With the contraintes of the IT ruleset, I think it is a horrible yardstick. With things like cams, carbs, throttle bodies, air metering devices, compression ratios - all having to remain stock (CR is equal because everyone gets the .5 allowance), you can't equalize them from car to car. So you have what you have. Just because two cars have 2.0 liters means NOTHING in IT. It may mean something in full-prep Production because all those things are open, but not in this house.

So to set weight in a power to weight calculation, you need a hp estimate. If you don't know, you guess and you hope you get it close. If you do, you must use it, especially when it has the potential to create an overdog. Take your car:

91hp x 1.25 = 1885lb minimum
109-110whp estimate = 40% increase over stock = 2130 minimum

Your car was classed based on numbers supplied to us by our Honda experts. It was the old way of having to 'prove' things, and by that I mean "Peter said', or 'Bob said' those numbers were for sure doable. Now the Process is held to a much higher standard - right or wrong.

My unnofficial opinion on 3 cars in ITB:

Golf: Is 50lbs light by virtue of an 'adder' it got for bad read suspension that was mis-applied and is no longer part of the Process.

Accord: Right on

Your car: Potentially right on if the power estimate the ITAC assigned to it way-back-when is close to correct.

[RacerBill]

Upon further reflection, here is what I think should be able to happen WRT weight changes:

1. A mistake is made in the process by observation of the SCCA. Wrong stock HP used, estimate on multiplier too low or too high with documented supporting data, or some other error used when processing the car resulting in a weight too high or too low - per the Process, not on track observation. Reset weight

2. Per written member request on 'unprocessed' cars. Reply back with current Process weight and calculation. If weight fits Process, "Weight appropriate as classified". If not, even by 5lbs, reset per Process, reply with math and document..

Exactly!!!!!!!!! Yes!!!!!!!!!!


2A. There are cars in the ITCS that are red flags. Alfas, Audis, Triumphs, anything from the smog era, etc. These cars may show low stock HP and huge gains in IT trim or have unreliable European hp numbers from different eras. Careful care and patience must be displayed on both sides. ITAC should do reasearch. Member may be required to submit real dyno data and build sheets. All in an effort for a one-off to be classed fairly but to limit the potential for a mistake that disrupts the class.

Again, and this is a BIG again...and I hope the CRB is reading this: There is NOT ONE IT member who I have talked with who doesn't want transparencey and consistancy via a documented successful Process vs. a 'like architechture' and 'I saw it on the back straight' mentality. We are willing to be 'off' by some weight to be able to show people exactly how and why the car weighs what it weighs. THAT is the definition of 'no guarantee of competitivness' to me.

The CRB should be BEGGING the ITAC to submit reworded ITCS language so they can un-shackle themselves from the chains they have put on THEMSELVES that they refused to be bound by from 2005-2009. There is nothing that stops progress faster in life than the mindset that 'things are good now so lets not continue to forge ahead'. Especially when you are limiting the very thing that got you where you are today.

Andy: Your post is spot on. I do believe that we need to reword the section of the ITCS that deals with the current specification and weight determination section.

[lateapex911]

Upon further reflection, here is what I think should be able to happen WRT weight changes:

1. A mistake is made in the process by observation of the SCCA. Wrong stock HP used, estimate on multiplier too low or too high with documented supporting data, or some other error used when processing the car resulting in a weight too high or too low - per the Process, not on track observation. Reset weight

2. Per written member request on 'unprocessed' cars. Reply back with current Process weight and calculation. If weight fits Process, "Weight appropriate as classified". If not, even by 5lbs, reset per Process, reply with math and document.


That's pretty much where we were when the chains got thrown into the machine. That was what we were doing, and we had the Process fine tuned to do it in a consistent, transparent and repeatable manner.


Again, and this is a BIG again...and I hope the CRB is reading this: There is NOT ONE IT member who I have talked with who doesn't want transparencey and consistancy via a documented successful Process vs. a 'like architechture' and 'I saw it on the back straight' mentality. We are willing to be 'off' by some weight to be able to show people exactly how and why the car weighs what it weighs. THAT is the definition of 'no guarantee of competitivness' to me.

The CRB should be BEGGING the ITAC to submit reworded ITCS language so they can un-shackle themselves from the chains they have put on THEMSELVES that they refused to be bound by from 2005-2009. There is nothing that stops progress faster in life than the mindset that 'things are good now so lets not continue to forge ahead'. Especially when you are limiting the very thing that got you where you are today.

You weren't on my last call, Andy, the CRB was certainly told that they were ignoring the members wishes and standards. Well, the CRB members of the CRB that are on our call were told that.....I used to assume that they reported back to the entire CRB in a responsible fashion, but after being told that member(s) of the CRB were completely unfamiliar with the "Process" which had been in use for 5 years, I guess I was naive in my thinking that the CRB body 'ran" the show, as opposed to two or three members..

[Knestis]

Hello from Portland, ME...! I've had a couple of beers and the hotel room has wireless...

1. There is no functional process.

2. A couple guys at the ITAC-CRB intersection decide what weights they think are OK for IT cars.

3. The rest of the CRB members are busy dealing with the categories THEY race in, so rubber stamp those decisions.

4. Explanations of various and changing "systems" get used to explain away the inconsistency.

5. People who can see what is really going on are fine with it.

6. People who should be pissed off are largely apathetic.

7. People who have recently fought city hall lost.

8. I expect my director to start working to fix this problem. You should too.

9. There is still unconsumed beer in Maine.

K

[Greg Gauper]

Speaking as someone with some experience with the 12V motor in the more liberal limted prep production trim, I find the 109WHP target for a legal IT prep motor a bit optimistic...

What kind of weight numbers do you come up with a more conservative target of 105WHP?

Also, did they lose the 7" rims when they got moved back to ITB?

[trhoppe]

Someone add 100-150lbs to the damn ITA 1.8 Miata already :happy204::happy204:

[Knestis]

Someone add 100-150lbs to the damn ITA 1.8 Miata already :happy204::happy204:

Hey, Tom - when you base your opinions on on-track performance, you're officially part of the problem rather than the solution.

K

[JeffYoung]

I really can't emphasize enough, for the others reading this thread, how much you just don't know what you are talking about.


Work on the relationship? That's rich. The CRB has said the "relationship" is servile - shut up and do what we want, the way we want it and when you don't, it's still going to be the way we want it.

I fail to see where there is any grey area in which to work. It is very clear to me that there is no possibility of "working with" the current CRB. The only variable that can be altered is the CRB itself, as in how to get it replaced.

There are members of the CRB that have been disingenuous, dishonest and deceitful in their dealings with the ITAC. There is no possibility of reforming that.



Well, I would disagree on many counts. There are people on the CRB who by their dishonest actions are bad people. I have doubts regarding their commitment to the success of IT - the CRB suffers from a Runoffs-centric view. As for Quisling/Henry - you either hold true to your convictions or you don't

If one believes in the "process" and disagrees with the displacement view, continuing as an underling for the current CRB equates to being a sellout. There is no hope of changing their world view. The current CRB has made that very clear. I far more respect the act of resignation.

[jjjanos]

I really can't emphasize enough, for the others reading this thread, how much you just don't know what you are talking about.

And I can't emphasize enough to you that after I responded to Mr. Dowie on the scca forums, I received information that members of the CRB were agreeing to one thing and then doing something else. Where I sit, that is dishonest, disingenuous and deceitful. Along those lines, members of the CRB may be acting unethical as well because they must completely remove themselves from the discussion and voting if the matter relates to a class in which they participate.

Rule 5.A.5: Don't vote, or even participate in discussions, on matters relating to you personally. - CRB operations manual
Run an ITB Accord? Then you must completely excuse yourself from any matter relating to ITB. Run any IT car? Then you must completely excuse yourself from any matter relating to IT philosophy or changes to the entire category.

They aren't all bad, but the Osmond Brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Bad_Apple) rule applies.

[Ron Earp]

I really can't emphasize enough, for the others reading this thread, how much you just don't know what you are talking about.

Well, not to defend is comments but it might be that he doesn't know what he's talking about because the open and transparent nature of the ITAC has largely disappeared. Josh is doing what he can, I believe, but member interactions are much different with ITAC V3.0 compared to ITAC V2.0. Do all the members of the current ITAC regularly use the internet?

Me, I think I'll ask for term limits, voting procedures requiring abstinence for involved members, and a clause that prevents members from serving on the ITAC unless they have actively raced IT in the last twelve months and are current license holders.

Why does ITB always set this shit off?

[jjjanos]

Well, not to defend is comments but it might be that he doesn't know what he's talking about because the open and transparent nature of the ITAC has largely disappeared.

ITAC isn't the problem.

[JeffYoung]

I agree the lower level of communication is not (in my view) a good idea. But it is what it is.

Jjanos, without trying to throw any other members of the ITAC under the bus, since they are entitled to their opinions (and I do think they all have, in their way, the good of the category at heart), I think you would disagree very strongly with some of the viewpoints held by some, perhaps most, of the ITAC.

The constant slagging of the CRB is irksome. They are not "deceitful and dishonest." I have some very strong disagreements with what has gone on with the ITAC and CRB the last six months, but I've not encountered anyway who I thought was doing anything other than what they thought best for IT.

[Ron Earp]

ITAC isn't the problem.

In general I'd agree and I'm not saying the CRB is the problem, but I'd like to see some common sense guidelines like I, and others have listed, put into place.

[tom91ita]

Speaking as someone with some experience with the 12V motor in the more liberal limted prep production trim, I find the 109WHP target for a legal IT prep motor a bit optimistic...

What kind of weight numbers do you come up with a more conservative target of 105WHP?

105 WHP / 0.85 = 123.5 hp

123.5 * 17 - 50 for FWD = 2049.5 so call it 2050 #'s

btw, the 123.5/91 = 35.7% gain. Catch had indicated that i should expect 30-35% gain. Greg, you are very consistent with that and i appreciate you offering your experience.


Also, did they lose the 7" rims when they got moved back to ITB? all ITB cars are 6" max rims

[lateapex911]

One of the fine tuning items in the V2.0 Process was the refinement of the FWD adder. When the CRX in question was moved to B, it got a flat amount but now, it wouldn't, it would be a tad less, I think. ( can't remember it off the top of my head), but the flat amount was used as the base, (Applied to the median car) and the cars with more or less weight got a proportional amount.

Just FYI.

Oh, Andy, wasn't Scott on that call?

[jjjanos]

Jjanos, without trying to throw any other members of the ITAC under the bus, since they are entitled to their opinions (and I do think they all have, in their way, the good of the category at heart), I think you would disagree very strongly with some of the viewpoints held by some, perhaps most, of the ITAC.

Would that be members of the previous ITAC or members of the deferrential, obedient and controllable Vichy ITAC?


The constant slagging of the CRB is irksome.

As is the current composition of the CRB.


They are not "deceitful and dishonest."

I noticed that you did not say that they weren't disingenuous.

Deceitful: Deliberately misleading; deceptive.
Dishonest: Proceeding from or exhibiting lack of honesty; fraudulent.
Disingenuous: Lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere.

Let me see... CRB member is asked "is this what you said and is this what that means?" CRB member concurs. Next meeting, CRB member takes an opposing position that invalidates his previous statement and refuses to discuss the reasons for the discrepancy.

Sounds pretty dishonest, deceitful and disingenuous to me, but perhaps my characterization is harsh. I assumed that the member described above is/was in possession of his faculties. That could be incorrect and I will acknowledge that perhaps the actions of the person were not a result of being deceitful, dishonest or disingenous and that it could be a symptom of senility. Either way, he's got to go.

[quadzjr]

jjjanos: Though I am upset as anybody with the current CRB take on things. You always have to remember that we are only seeing one side of the story. I am not saying that what we hear on IT.com is incorrect. I am just saying that there is always two sides of a coin.

A similiar analgy could be when J. Kerry was running for president. He aquired a flip-flop name based on his vote on issues. There was little to no mention on the fact that his vote swayed due to the fact of all the additional stuff that was attached to said bills. But, we do know what we heard, and we made our judgements accordingly.

Like it or not, we have the CRB in place. If you want anything done you are going to have to work with them, if possible. I am trying to, once I get some sort of direction.

Hopefully in the future someone can propose a new intent clause or something of the like that they can put in the GCR in wording to use a process. I believe that the CRB hasn't recieved any letter to change the wording. I know it was discussed on other forums.

[Knestis]

Sorry, Jeff Y. - I'm with JJJ on this point.

I won't post Drago's email to Tom (forwarded/cc'd to me) without one or the other's permission, in which he completely misrepresents a number of important points, but it struck me as a classic example, timed to be extremely ironic.

The inclination to spin is so institutionalized, those who do it don't even recognize when it's happening. It gets rationalized away as "working the system" or "necessary politics of getting things done," but it's deceitful.

The letter submission system is a great start, preventing the "Gee, where did that go?" way of passively ditching problematic members' requests, but there's a lot of improvement still needed.

K

EDIT - To be clear, if a CRB member has a different priority or perspective (say, than mine), they are absolutely allowed to pursue what they think is best for the club and category. When they pursue an agenda without being honest about it, it becomes a problem. Equally problematic are conflicts of interest - even perceived conflicts.

PS - +1 for Lobster Red Ale, in a frozen aluminum cup, at Silly's hippie restaurant in Portland, ME.

[lateapex911]

jjjanos: Though I am upset as anybody with the current CRB take on things. You always have to remember that we are only seeing one side of the story. ....

But...who's choice is that!?!! Their choice. You saw the thread where Bob posted explanations. And you saw the hypocritical statements that resulted, and you saw how many questions were ignored. 100% of the questions I asked were ignored.


Why?
because there were no answers that were satisfactory, or the answers that could be given would have backed the CRb into a bad position. I'd submit that Bobs uncomfortableness with interent discussions has it's roots in the need to not make definitive, clear, concise public statements that can be referred to by anyone at anytime. It was the thinking of a large portion of the ITAC (mostly the resigned members) that a transparent, and 100% open communications policy was the best way, and they came to that conclusion because they felt their work was good, satisfied the members first principals, and there was nothing to hide.

Sorry, I was there, I was shocked at the methods and lack of communication, and poor leadership. I'd love to hear the other side of the story in public, because I know it...and it isn't pretty.

[Conover]

Here's a crazy question, which may reveal just how much I don't understand the system. That question being;
Why do we need the CRB in the first place?

What am I thinking?

IT is a regional class, the powers that be have made that very clear to us.

The ITAC could fairly easily publish it's own spec lines, local members in each region petition their RE's and ask to run under the ITAC's Spec lines and not those published in the GCR.

Yeah, it could cause a bit of confusion at things like the ARRC and IT fest, but how about those organizing those type of events make it clear what spec line they are using.

If the IT community is as unsettled by the current atmosphere as I think they are, I'm sure the troops could be rallied in an effort to make the new IT organization homogeneous throughout the country.

OK, so the CRB says screw you guys we're firing the whole ITAC.

Again, why do we need their input?

This also lets the membership vote in several ways. With entry fees, in their petition to their Regional Executives, and with their participation with the ITAC in this process.


You think it would take more than one season to get the CRB to pay attention to what the IT community has to say?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Because the ITAC would then become the 'CRB'. Meaning there always has to be a place where the Buck stops....and just because you currently don't like WHO is making the decisions or the decisions themselves doesn't mean the structure is wrong.

[Ron Earp]

The ITAC could fairly easily publish it's own spec lines, local members in each region petition their RE's and ask to run under the ITAC's Spec lines and not those published in the GCR.

I'm very much liking that. Correct the issues that need correcting with an ITAC and member input. Regions can run those rules at the request of racers. Club by the people for the people.

[Conover]

Because the ITAC would then become the 'CRB'. Meaning there always has to be a place where the Buck stops....and just because you currently don't like WHO is making the decisions or the decisions themselves doesn't mean the structure is wrong.

It's less about who and more about structure.

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, I love you man, and you know I agree with your "first principles" about the Process, etc.

But I do not agree that the CRB has been disingenous (there you go Jjanos), dishonest, or deceitful. I disagree strongly with how they approached things over the last six months, and some of their view for the category, but I think much of what went on was unfortunate miscommunication (or lack of it) leading to some silly things being said. Sometimes on both sides. Sometimes by me.

I came with a few minutes of resigning myself, primarily over the communication issue -- and I fully agree that one part of the CRB culture I do not like is the idea that there is some "right" to conduct discussions in secret. But I know, and I think you do too, that the guys on the CRB are not out to intentionally decieve, or manipulate, or lie to the IT community.




Sorry, Jeff Y. - I'm with JJJ on this point.

I won't post Drago's email to Tom (forwarded/cc'd to me) without one or the other's permission, in which he completely misrepresents a number of important points, but it struck me as a classic example, timed to be extremely ironic.

The inclination to spin is so institutionalized, those who do it don't even recognize when it's happening. It gets rationalized away as "working the system" or "necessary politics of getting things done," but it's deceitful.

The letter submission system is a great start, preventing the "Gee, where did that go?" way of passively ditching problematic members' requests, but there's a lot of improvement still needed.

K

EDIT - To be clear, if a CRB member has a different priority or perspective (say, than mine), they are absolutely allowed to pursue what they think is best for the club and category. When they pursue an agenda without being honest about it, it becomes a problem. Equally problematic are conflicts of interest - even perceived conflicts.

PS - +1 for Lobster Red Ale, in a frozen aluminum cup, at Silly's hippie restaurant in Portland, ME.

[RacerBill]

I just posted the following message on the SCCA Improved Touring forum.

The following paragraphs were added to the GCR on 1/1/2005.

9.1.3
During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a "performance compensation adjustment" shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.
On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle’s class.

This rule has been cited to me several times as the reason why the CRB will not adjust the weight of my car - 1983 Dodge Shelby Charger, even though running it through the formula that was quoted by the chairman of the CRB on the SCCA Improved Touring forum would have resulted in a weight of 1889 in ITA or 2254 in ITB.

Perhaps with a clarification of the rule, we can develop and recommend a change that will allow changes to cars that were classified prior to 2005 that will be agreeable to the membership (including the ITAC, CRB and the BOD).

[Knestis]

>> ... But I know, and I think you do too, that the guys on the CRB are not out to intentionally decieve, or manipulate, or lie to the IT community.

Nope - I do NOT know that.

In fact, I am confident of exactly the opposite - that some members of the CRB have, in the past year, told different people different things purported to be equally "true."

That they have misrepresented to members the cause of the conflict between the ITAC and CRB.

That they have selectively - sometimes day-to-day or week-to-week - redefined "standard practices" to result in preordinate weight outcomes.

That they have knowingly misrepresented or revised history to rationalize certain ends or justify decisions.

Do i think that THEY think they are being bad? No. They think they are doing the "right thing for the category" - what they have to do to accomplish their desired ends. Working the system.

But they have been untruthful, selective in their "facts," intellectually dishonest, and dismissive of information inconsistent with their preconceived notions - with the ITAC and with members. They have lied.

K

EDIT - Let me back into the ITAC SCCA bulletin board and I'll pull specific examples for you.

[iambhooper]

Tom, even though I'm no longer in the car, I wish you the best of luck with that fight! When I converted the car over from ITC to B, I built the car to the best I could afford and within the rules. The Dyno #'s on my car were something like 96.7 HP and 99 lbs torque. I really never accomplished much with the ECU (i failed at the Megasquirt) and probably had a bit to gain with a crank scraper and possibly a custom header (over the DC sports street unit). Does all that add up to 109, don't know... but I could see a car getting to 105 with all the extra goodie's mentioned above.

The guys with the 4th gen civic's certainly have all the go fast bit's of the ITA CRX at their disposal, so dropping the weight on the 1st/3rd gen should help make it a more reliable contender!

[Charlie Broring]

I just posted the following message on the SCCA Improved Touring forum.

The following paragraphs were added to the GCR on 1/1/2005.

9.1.3
During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a "performance compensation adjustment" shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.
On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle’s class.



Interesting quote from the GCR. It appears to mandate evaluating on track performance for newly classified cars and making appropriate adjustments. Why isn't that being done?

I might also conclude that the personal agenda of some recent ITAC members to ignore "the vehicles racing performance relitive to other cars in class" is at odds with the GCR.

[jjjanos]

Kirk, I love you man, and you know I agree with your "first principles" about the Process, etc.

But I do not agree that the CRB has been disingenous (there you go Jjanos), dishonest, or deceitful.


Rule 9.1.3 - During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a "performance compensation adjustment" shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.
On rare occasion—and only after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular make/model/year of vehicle—the Club may reclassify a vehicle, revise a vehicle’s minimum allowable weight, and/or in the most extreme situation an intake restrictor may be required. Such an action shall be taken solely for the purpose of restoring equity within the vehicle’s class.

There is NO allowance for correcting "errors" outside that 5-year window - period.

The CRB says it's hands are tied by what the GCR allows (which is 100% bullshit as the CRB has free-reign to modify the GCR as it sees fit) and, yet, it adjusted the weight of the BMW outside of that window.

That sir, is disingenuous, deceitful and dishonest.

Either they have the authority to make corrections to older classifications or they don't.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Interesting quote from the GCR. It appears to mandate evaluating on track performance for newly classified cars and making appropriate adjustments. Why isn't that being done?

I might also conclude that the personal agenda of some recent ITAC members to ignore "the vehicles racing performance relitive to other cars in class" is at odds with the GCR.

Nobody ever wanted to 'ignore' on-track performance. It has been said over and over and over that it is a fine trigger to probe what input into the weight-setting process was incorrect. Once that factor is found and corrected, it should be re-inserted and a new number spit out. What that first paragraph really says is that the CRB will keep an eye out for overdogs.

What NOBODY ever advocated was "We won't consider the reprocessing of that car because it does just fine on-track" or "Let's throw 100lbs on that car and evaluate it over the next year".

BIG difference.

[JeffYoung]

Jjanos, there has been a lot of discussion over that paragraph, what it meant before the Great Realignment, and what it was intended to mean now.

I actually AGREE with the CRB that we are by rule prohibited from reprocessing cars by request based on that rule. But we did it anyway, and they let us -- for a while I would say that right there is the biggest reason we had a lot of folks resign. Once we started to touch some sacred cows with the reprocessing, we had some issues.

The CRB is open to a reevaluation of that rule, and has asked us to consider submitting a rewrite.

CRB/ITAC communciation is pretty good at this point, which is why I don't think some of the posting above is productive.

Now, the discussion about terms limits, or whether we need CRB oversight of the ITAC, that is a good discussion. Me:

1. This is an outlaw regional class. No need for CRB oversight...unless there are plans to go National......

2. Term limits, hell yes. 3-4 years of this and it is time for new blood. The problem, as Josh has pointed out, is finding it. Not a lot of folks want to do this. For obvious reasons.

[Ron Earp]

2. Term limits, hell yes. 3-4 years of this and it is time for new blood. The problem, as Josh has pointed out, is finding it. Not a lot of folks want to do this. For obvious reasons.

I submit that if you get term limits and an IT participation clause then you'll dissolve some of the "old boy network" and you'll attract new talent. New guys don't want to come into a quagmire created and still managed by some old guys that have been on the ITAC for 10 years and "know how it is done" and "know what members want".

Get that done and I'll sign up for some time on the ITAC - if that time comes and if I'm still actively involved in IT.

[tom91ita]

There is NO allowance for correcting "errors" outside that 5-year window - period.

which is why i am concerned about approaching the 5 year timing for the weight change of my car going from ITA to ITB. even though i have been asking for it to be re-processed via the "process" since 2008.


What NOBODY ever advocated was "We won't consider the reprocessing of that car because it does just fine on-track" ...

Actually Andy, i respectfully disagree since i feel that if not stated in words, that "feels" alot like what has happened to me in response to my requests.

has anyone actually said that? no. has the end result been effectively the same? in my view, yes.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually Andy, i respectfully disagree since i feel that if not stated in words, that "feels" alot like what has happened to me in response to my requests.

has anyone actually said that? no. has the end result been effectively the same? in my view, yes.

Tom,

I am not sure that you undertand that your car may be processed perfectly. You know the math now. Agree or disagree, even under the 'old' ITAC, your car wouldn't be getting any consideration for a change without substantial data that proved the math was/is wrong.

My comments are specifically applied to the ITAC as was constituted when I was on. The CRB was different.

[tom91ita]

I am not sure that you undertand that your car may be processed perfectly. You know the math now. Agree or disagree, even under the 'old' ITAC, your car wouldn't be getting any consideration for a change without substantial data that proved the math was/is wrong.

basically i disagree and was trying to give the data both based on the multiplier comparison and, since i have read different times that some members of the CRB and/or ITAC think that displacement is a key factor, in terms of # per liter.

i think that 1.35 is realistic based on feedback from people like Greg above and Catch/Scott. i don't think that this 12V motor that is quite similar to the other Honda 12V motors in terms of HP/Liter can have power gains effectively the same as Honda 16V motors.

but the difference between 1.35 (1.35*91*17-50 = 2038.45 so call it 2040) and the current 2130 is 90 #'s and i think this is worth asking for.

is the preferred method for me to build the motor and submit the dyno runs rather than make comparisons between similar cars & motors?

i know the on-track performance method can't be used because i stink at Road Atlanta and can't keep out of the way of the front running ITC CRX's.

[JoshS]

Tom, displacement is not and has never been part of the weight calculations, even though some members of some committees think that would be sensible.

[lateapex911]

Josh, that's true as it's written, I guess. But, the flip side is that weights that have been recommended have been rejected, and displacement was the reason given, so, in the end, it HAS been used to set weights, albeit in a reverse method.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Tom, displacement is not and has never been part of the weight calculations, even though some members of some committees think that would be sensible.

I am going to disagree on principle. It may not be a consideration in a new classification, but it is when cars are looked at for review. So by default, it is a factor the CRB uses when refusing to 'Process' legacy cars, no?

[JeffYoung]

Do you mean the CRB looks at displacement, or that under the Process, we did not?

I agree that at this point, yes, displacement is considered in classification decisions. It is considered "architecture" for one. Two, a specific example is teh 528e which was deemed to simply have too large of a motor for ITB.

I disagree with all of that, but it is the decision of the committee and the CRB. I personally do not think displacement is relevant (Andy's 2.0 SE-R motor to S2000 motor comparo is spot on) and is already accounted for via the torque modifier anyway. I also think that no car has "too big" or "too small" a motor for a particular class. Process it, and see where it fits best weight wise - heavy in the lower class, or lighter in the higher one.


I am going to disagree on principle. It may not be a consideration in a new classification, but it is when cars are looked at for review. So by default, it is a factor the CRB uses when refusing to 'Process' legacy cars, no?

[steve b]

How is this for an idea...
Instead of pointing at any one specific car, put in a request to include the weight calculation on the spec line of all cars.

If this is passed, wouldn't that force every car to get looked at and put through "the process" (whatever interpretation is picked)?

Granted, a lot of work for someone, but if most of it has already been done, not really. Once it is done, no one would ever have to look back at it again.

But then, what would we talk about on this board???

[Chip42]

in regards to the architecture argument - agreed that an SE-R's 2.0 L DOHC 16v vs. S2000's 2.0L DOHC 16v is not fair. but that isn't to say that 2 or 3 12v honda 4 cylinders wont behave similarly in terms of hp/litre, they will.

actually, if you consider the architecture, fully, the 12v hondas in the accord LXi and the CRX are pretty simillar, while the SE-R and the S2000 are very dissimillar. bore/stroke ratio, rod ratio, valve and cam size / duration / orientation, port size, CR, induction system plenum volume / engine swept volume ratio, TB diameter, etc... it's a fair basis for a lot of estimates for an unknown engine from a known one of simillar design.

not that the ITAC should have to look at all of that info, the "process" seems to work, by and large when it is allowed to be used. but if a competitor wants to dig up all or some of the above as PART of the argument for or against a classification or reclassification of a particular car, I think it's fair to consider it, and not dismis the effort as it relies, if only in part, on architecture. that said, if someone uses the SER/S2000 example above, call them out on it because those things only match on a window sticker level understanding of the motor.

btw who is on the ITAC now and the CRB? the lists on the SCCA website do not include a number of people that I have heard ARE on (a honda driving floridian for one). who is/are the IT liason(s) from the CRB? what's the best message to comunicate to my area director to motivate a change? "I'm upset with it" might not get us too far.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Do you mean the CRB looks at displacement, or that under the Process, we did not?

I agree that at this point, yes, displacement is considered in classification decisions. It is considered "architecture" for one. Two, a specific example is teh 528e which was deemed to simply have too large of a motor for ITB.

I disagree with all of that, but it is the decision of the committee and the CRB. I personally do not think displacement is relevant (Andy's 2.0 SE-R motor to S2000 motor comparo is spot on) and is already accounted for via the torque modifier anyway. I also think that no car has "too big" or "too small" a motor for a particular class. Process it, and see where it fits best weight wise - heavy in the lower class, or lighter in the higher one.

I mean that when ever anyones says 'like displacement and architecture', it's a factor.

[jjjanos]

Jjanos, there has been a lot of discussion over that paragraph, what it meant before the Great Realignment, and what it was intended to mean now.

What the paragraph is intended to mean? Give me a freaking break. There is absolutely no, zero, zilch, zippo, nada, nichts room for interpretation of whether a classification of a particular car in a specific IT class may be altered in anyway other than through the addition of an intake restrictor. There is no errors/omission clause in the IT rules, period.

The CRB says it cannot reclassify a car unless there was an error because of that paragraph. I.e. 9.3.1 does not grant them that power. Very well, let us accept that the CRB may only act where the GCR grants them specific powers. Point to the text in 9.3.1. that grants them the authority to reclassify on the basis of an error....

It isn't there. Therefore, under their own half-brained rule, they have no power to make any correction outside that 4-year window.

I didn't create their rules - they did, so they need to live within them.


I actually AGREE with the CRB that we are by rule prohibited from reprocessing cars by request based on that rule. But we did it anyway, and they let us -- for a while I would say that right there is the biggest reason we had a lot of folks resign. Once we started to touch some sacred cows with the reprocessing, we had some issues.Irrelevant. An error is an error is an error regardless of the source. If one may correct one type of error, then one may correct ANY error. Anything less is disingenuous and dishonest.

[lateapex911]

Yea, an glaring error is one that I was party to, we used the wrong multiplier on the MR2. It was SOP at that point to use 25% across the board, but, and I'm responsible, as Andy was traveling and not on the call, we used 30% accidentally...a simple math error. Now, in my defense, I was traveling too, and running the meeting on a laptop instead of my usual 27", 24" AND a laptop, but it happened.

Yet, even after identifying, and requesting to correct the error, it has been rejected.

Not to mention that even the 25% number makes little sense....but, hey, why bring reality into it?

Why that car can not be corrected is beyond me..there is NO legitimate reason that it can't, yet the Powers that can refuse it keep refusing it.

[jjjanos]

Yea, an glaring error is one that I was party to, we used the wrong multiplier on the MR2. It was SOP at that point to use 25% across the board, but, and I'm responsible, as Andy was traveling and not on the call, we used 30% accidentally...a simple math error. Now, in my defense, I was traveling too, and running the meeting on a laptop instead of my usual 27", 24" AND a laptop, but it happened.

Yet, even after identifying, and requesting to correct the error, it has been rejected.
The Club Racing Rules Process....

These rules are approved by the CRB: clarifications (these add or change language to mkae clear the original intent of a rule); errors and omissions (corrections to typos or information that was omitted when originally adopted); Sports Car, June 2010, page 52
Seems pretty obvious that the error above fits the definition.


Why that car can not be corrected is beyond me..there is NO legitimate reason that it can't, yet the Powers that can refuse it keep refusing it.Ethical failure?

One simple question... the CRB liasons to the ITAC... IT drivers or not? If so, then they have no business being the advisor as the CRB operations manual specifically prohibits them being involved in any part of adopting a rules to change that would affect them personally. If they race an ITS car, then the moment discussion turns to classifying an ITS car, the liason must recuse themselves from being part of the discussion within the ITAC and the CRB and cannot vote at the CRB on the matter.

[Knestis]

...which (I believe) is exactly the opposite of what happens at the CRB level. I'm pretty sure that other members defer to the CRB "IT experts" for guidance on all IT class questions.

K

[rcc85]

Well, I've decided to jump into the fray and submit a request to the CRB. I guess it worked, I haven't received and email confirmation yet.

Here it is:

"Please review the weight of the 1984-1989 Dodge Daytona as classified in ITB. There are currently five Dodge & Plymouth models using the same basic 2.2L SOHC engine classified in ITB as follows:

1981-85 dodge O24/Charger & Plymouth TC3/Turismo
2320 lbs
Best stock hp/torque: 96 hp/119 lbs/ft

1984-84 Dodge Shelby Charger
2430 lbs
Best stock hp/torque: 110 hp/ 129 lbs/ft

1984-89 Dodge Daytona
2630 lbs
Best stock hp/torque: 99hp/121 lbs/ft.

1980-90 Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon
2320 lbs
Best stock hp/torque: 96hp/119 lbs/ft

1989-91 Dodge Shadow
2680 lbs
Best stock hp/torque: 93 hp/122 lbs/ft.

As you can see, the Daytona is 200 lbs heavier than the more powerful (by 11 hp) Shelby Charger and 310 lbs heavier than the slightly less powerful (by 3 hp) Charger/Turismo/Omni/Horizon.

I cite the recent weight correction for the 1977-79 BMW 320i (2.0) in ITB as precedent for this request.

The attachment details engine availability and stock power ratings by model and year.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me."

We'll see what happens next.

Bob Clifton
#85 ITB Dodge Daytona

[tom91ita]

if you submitted to the SCCA website tracking system, you should have automatically gotten a response almost instantly.

[rcc85]

if you submitted to the SCCA website tracking system, you should have automatically gotten a response almost instantly.

That's what I thought, Tom, but I haven't received one. I submitted the request via www.crbscca.com as indicated in the current issue of SportsCar. After I filled in the CRB request form and hit the "submit" button, the only thing that happened was that the category & class returned to "AS".

I wonder what I did wrong?

Bob Clifton
#85 ITB Dodge Daytona

[iambhooper]

That's what I thought, Tom, but I haven't received one. I submitted the request via www.crbscca.com (http://www.crbscca.com) as indicated in the current issue of SportsCar. After I filled in the CRB request form and hit the "submit" button, the only thing that happened was that the category & class returned to "AS".

I wonder what I did wrong?

Bob Clifton
#85 ITB Dodge Daytona

yes, an automated response should have been generated. you may want to resubmit the request.

[rsportvolvo]

The ITAC is reviewing the Volvo 240 line items. My original request was to correct errors and I foolishly thought the line items would be re-evaluated. Since that was not the case I submitted requests for the 2 smaller engined line items to be re-evaluated. Still slated for discussion. This falls outside of the 5 year window and is similar to the Mopar request above.

This entire situation is quite ridiculous, par for the course with SCCA, but I digress. Since IT is a regional class, however popular, there is no need for national class advisory boards. I'm with Mr. Conover on this as I think he has provided a very good solution to the IT dilemna.

[lateapex911]

This entire situation is quite ridiculous, par for the course with SCCA, but I digress. Since IT is a regional class, however popular, there is no need for national class advisory boards. I'm with Mr. Conover on this as I think he has provided a very good solution to the IT dilemna.

Actually, I differ...there IS a need for rules to be consistent, even if it IS regional. Lot's of IT guys travel. Events like the IT Fest and the ARRC couldn't exist if there wasn't one cohesive set of rules.

I certainly don't know how or if the IT category fits into the greater scheme as the CRB envisions; they have discussed ideas with the ITAC, but it's been nothing but discussion that I'm aware of, no direction has ever been stated to my knowledge.

[rsportvolvo]

Actually, I differ...there IS a need for rules to be consistent, even if it IS regional. Lot's of IT guys travel. Events like the IT Fest and the ARRC couldn't exist if there wasn't one cohesive set of rules.

I certainly don't know how or if the IT category fits into the greater scheme as the CRB envisions; they have discussed ideas with the ITAC, but it's been nothing but discussion that I'm aware of, no direction has ever been stated to my knowledge.

Rules being consistent and IT being run by SCCA National are two different subjects. I'm all for consistency in IT. Right now the CRB is affecting that.

A suggestion could be to model the ACO for LeMans. They set the rules for their big race. So let the IT Championship race region set the regs.

[gran racing]

There is no IT championship race. :shrug:

Yes, the ARRC is a big deal and that region has done a fantastic job with it. However great it is, the event is a regional event and not an official championship event.

What the category needs is a clear direction where it should be heading, membership support, communication (between the powers that be AND membership), and to get rid of some of those currently involved. We have the tools; we're just are not using them well.

[shwah]

Dave - what you describe is exactly the primary idea behind the IT Driver's Championship.

What we need right now is some additional support from the IT community to promote and market the ITDC, which has the potential to become a more legitimate championship than the one they have for National classes, because it is not based on a single race.:eclipsee_steering:

[rcc85]

Well, I finally got my CRB Submission Letter to go through. I think I tried four times with an attachment. On the 5th try, I left the attachment (which was well under the 2 MB limit) off and it worked. I was beginning to think that the CRB was blocking any letter with the word "Weight" in the request line:D.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona
Currently at 2630 lbs but hopeful

[RacerBill]

Bob: Good luck! I will be following your saga with great interest. I have tried to get the weight of my ITB Shelby reduced with no luck, in fact my letter got lost in the system, and a response will never make it to fastrack (If you don't believe me, check letter #686 in the letter tracking section). By my calculations using the process to set weights for newly classed cars, my car is about 175 lbs overweight and if it was still in ITA it would be almost 600 lbs overweight. What was the letter number that was assigned to your letter?

[rcc85]

Bill,

The tracking number for my letter is 1420. I also noticed when I was looking for the BMW 320i request, that someone has requested that the GLH be moved to ITB. I always wondered why it wasn't done at the same time as the Shelby Charger. Maybe it needed it's own request.

All of the 2.2 Mopars in ITB are over the process weight, some worse than others. My theory is that when the Shelby Charger was moved to ITB they had to make it heavier than lower powered L bodies that were already there. If the Shelby Charger was moved to ITB at process weight, they would have had to review (and lower) the weights on the existing L bodies to process weight. So, the Shelby ended up at a rather arbitrary 2430 lbs (instead of 2280 ish).

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[RacerBill]

Bob: The Shelby was listed at 2430 when it was in ITA. And yes it is 100 lbs heavier than the non-Shelby Omni/Chargers. The probable reason why the GLH was not moved to ITB before now was that no one requested it.

[tom91ita]

got an email today:


Your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and tabled for further review. After additional research, the committee will send a recommendation to the CRB.