Car specs in the ITCS

[JoshS]

Does anyone think there is big value in having car specs listed in the ITCS? Engine size, valve sizes, brake sizes, gear ratios, etc? Seems to me all that's really necessary is a description of what the spec line covers, and the weight, since we are just listing specifications out of each cars factory manuals.

What am I missing? What's the history, anyone know why it's all there? Was the club at one time going to specify non-stock specs for IT? Doubt that ...

[quadzjr]

Can you use the spec line as part of a mechcanical protest? Meaning if the listed CR is x you can protest the car they can use that as a baseline. Or protest teh vavles, and use the ITCS as guidance?

Also there are some chassis with multiple engines and it helps distinguish between the two.

[JeffYoung]

I think they are helpful. People (myself included) use them to quickly and easily assess cars and which ones have "potential." Second, it is easy to take a quick look at the specs and compare it to what you see in the paddock.

[Knestis]

My guess would be that it's a hold-over from practices in the Production category, in place when the ITCS first came out. The "specs" books used to be separate publications, with a page for each eligible car in a category. In prod (and at the time, the Sedan categories) had to list all kinds of specs because they were defined - seemingly at random - for each make/model (e.g., carb venturi diameter, brake size, etc.).

Your premise is sound though, Josh. Even more so for SS.

K

[xr4racer]

I think it should definitely be left in. It is nice to have all of the information in 1 place. You do not have to search the internet or manuals for it.

matt

[ScotMac]

I think it should definitely be left in. It is nice to have all of the information in 1 place. You do not have to search the internet or manuals for it.

matt

Exactly. Assuming it is accurate, it allows a single location for the tech stewards to get access to that info...instead of having to hope a racer brings a manual (yes, is a requirement), and he didn't print it up himself on his home laser printer.

[ScotMac]

Oh, obviously off topic, what happened Josh? Saw you parked at the top of the cork screw, on the first lap i think, and then never saw you again for the entire weekend.

[GKR_17]

Exactly. Assuming it is accurate, it allows a single location for the tech stewards to get access to that info...instead of having to hope a racer brings a manual (yes, is a requirement), and he didn't print it up himself on his home laser printer.

I think if a protest is filed, and the protestee doesn't produce the manual (as required), then the protested car should be disqualified immediately, with the missing manual noted in the logbook and not allowed to race again without it.

[Z3_GoCar]

I think if a protest is filed, and the protestee doesn't produce the manual (as required), then the protested car should be disqualified immediately, with the missing manual noted in the logbook and not allowed to race again without it.

So....

Do you have a factory manual, or are you like me and making due with a Bentley?

[JoshS]

Oh, obviously off topic, what happened Josh? Saw you parked at the top of the cork screw, on the first lap i think, and then never saw you again for the entire weekend.

Just another in a very frustrating 12+ months. Something let go in the engine going through T7 on that first full lap of practice. There was so much smoke inside and outside the car, and the smell was such, that I thought I was on fire. I pulled up right in front of the flag station at the top of the corkscrew. The flagger saw the smoke coming and pointed me in. Although the smoke dissipated quickly after I shut down, by that time I had already bailed out. Fortunately there was not actually a fire, although the oil looks like a coffee milkshake (creamy and frothy) and smells like charcoal. Unfortunately, the car was stuck in the gravel and they had to send a truck to get me out ... sorry about causing a BFA ... but better safe than sorry.

Head comes off again tomorrow. This head just went on 2 weeks ago.

[Chip42]

it's useful because there are a wide variety of trims out there. it's limiting because not all of the equipment is necessarily reviewed or listed when the classification is placed, putting competitors off of lines that could be good and have strong support. it's better to modify HOW we detail the classification than to try and list all of the various models using XYZ motor.

take hondaland. ITA civic EX, 2 and 4 doors. 1994-95 ABS cars had 4 wheel discs, but the specline only shows disc/drum (non ABS). the sister car, the Si 3 door has the same motor and weight, but is listed with its (std) 4 wheel discs. would the coupe and 4dr require additional weight if they were allowed the discs? if we did away with the detail of the spec line, would fielding an ABS car be legal - it is a USDM civic EX with common equipment.

if we are ever to have a true "process" then the understanding of the ITAC when classifying a car should be detailed in the specline so as to backup their calculations and so that the membership knows that the optional brakes were or were not considered when the car was classed. remembering that aero and a host of other things (was the motor use din a highly modified state in a formula racing series like the 4A-GE, leading to "knowledge" of it's power potential for example) ARE allowable considerations in the classification according to the first page of the ITCS. this is too open to CRB manipulation and favoritism i.e. abuse.

personally - I'd keep the specline, and rely more upon it than the general details like trim level. just list the model name, major engine dims and code, brake specs, and body styles and let the hijinks ensue. it's more accurate than how we do it now, even if it does allow for some combos that have never been sold -like a 3dr Accord LXi with SEi rear discs. example specline could be something like this:
[Honda Accord 1986-1989; 2dr/3dr; B: 82.7 x S: 92.0, 1955cc multi-port EFI "A20A3", 9.3:1, I: 30.1 / E: 35.1; 102.4in; 13/14"; gears (don't feel like typing them); F: 240 or 214 disc, R: 200 x 42.5 drum or 240 disc; 2550; notes]
I mean really, why not? this would make the ITAC/CRB/etc... lives easier by reducing the number of irrelevant spec lines, allow the membership to have a hard roof on a sunroof car, power steering in a coupe honda, or disc brakes on their coupe - weather they were sold that way or not (yes I know this is a big shakeup to the as sold in the USDM rules) because in the long run, it doesn't matter to the cars potential and it's easier to allow it than to try and cover it all in the specs. this is just an extension of the elimination of the VIN rule, and keeps the playing field as transparent to the general member as it is today - the cliffs notes of what some car is can be pulled directly from the ITCS.

alternatively - list classifications by make and engine and include a list of affected models. like "Honda, D16Z6, 1992-1995 civic EX/Si, 1993-1995 Civic Del Sol, etc..."

[joeg]

The ITCS is also wrong many times. I suspect that only for the more popular cars is the data pretty close to being spot on.

Run a vintage odd ball? Have your shop manuals at the track. I would bet the valve sizes or gear ratios for your ITA AMC Spirit, your ITB Opel or ITC Yugo, may not be perfectly accurate...

[Greg Amy]

The value of the specs in the ITCS is for competitor comparisons of potential performance (wow, alliteration...) While I like having specs there, that's not the purpose of the regulations, nor are those specs particularly useful for post-race scrutineering (as a scrutineer, I would not rely on the ITCS; those are commonly incorrect. Instead, I'd mandate the competitor provide the workshop manual for the official specs.) So, it would be my opinion that any specs available in the shop manuals be stricken from the ITCS, leaving only those specs mandated by SCCA (weight, deviations from shop manual, allowances such as fuel cells in the trunk).

However, in this day and age, why not publish a separate PDF in the rules section on the web page with all the VTS info? If a competitor wants a handy comparo, they download it.


Do you have a factory manual, or are you like me and making due with a Bentley?

Bentley is the provider for factory workshop manuals for most German manufacturers, such as VWoA and BMW. Ergo, you're all set.

GA

[ScotMac]

Just another in a very frustrating 12+ months. Something let go in the engine going through T7 on that first full lap of practice. There was so much smoke inside and outside the car, and the smell was such, that I thought I was on fire. I pulled up right in front of the flag station at the top of the corkscrew. The flagger saw the smoke coming and pointed me in. Although the smoke dissipated quickly after I shut down, by that time I had already bailed out. Fortunately there was not actually a fire, although the oil looks like a coffee milkshake (creamy and frothy) and smells like charcoal. Unfortunately, the car was stuck in the gravel and they had to send a truck to get me out ... sorry about causing a BFA ... but better safe than sorry.

Head comes off again tomorrow. This head just went on 2 weeks ago.

Wow, sounds like a stock car/oval style engine blow-up. Sorry to hear it. Hope you can get it back together for thunderhill.

[seckerich]

What would be more helpful Josh is to put the items used to determine the cars weight on the spec line. The rest could be in a PDF as Greg mentioned. Any move to further reduce the printed information on classed cars is a step backwards. Should not take much space now that we only print a few GCR's. :023:

[GKR_17]

Do you have a factory manual, or are you like me and making due with a Bentley?

Depending on the car, over the years we have had the Bentley, the Hayes, and others, but ALWAYS the factory manual (ever see the set of encyclopedias for a Porsche 944?). A couple of those were in microfiche, but I did have a simple magnifier that could read that in a pinch. It is inexcusable not to have the manual for the standard IT classes (or proof of unavailability as required in the GCR). Tech shouldn't be issuing log books without it in my opinion. Now since ITE doesn't have much for rules, I'd say James is fine.



Bentley is the provider for factory workshop manuals for most German manufacturers, such as VWoA and BMW. Ergo, you're all set.

The common Bentley manual for German cars is not a factory manual, so that does NOT satisfy the rule.

[Z3_GoCar]

Depending on the car, over the years we have had the Bentley, the Hayes, and others, but ALWAYS the factory manual (ever see the set of encyclopedias for a Porsche 944?). A couple of those were in microfiche, but I did have a simple magnifier that could read that in a pinch. It is inexcusable not to have the manual for the standard IT classes (or proof of unavailability as required in the GCR). Tech shouldn't be issuing log books without it in my opinion. Now since ITE doesn't have much for rules, I'd say James is fine.



The common Bentley manual for German cars is not a factory manual, so that does NOT satisfy the rule.

Ahem,

except I'm in ITR now, and I've been to the dealer the only manual that BMW sells for the Z3, is the Bentley.

[Greg Amy]

The Bentley is the factory workshop manual for all Volkswagen and Audi. Has been for decades.

[GKR_17]

They may sell it at the dealer, but that does not make it the factory manual. The E36 factory manual came on microfiche (and later CD I believe). Not sure on the Z3.

This is really all about the specs. Let's turn this around, and suppose I protest your car based on some specs in a manual that I provide (which is not the factory manual). Think that should fly? I don't. Factory literature is the ONLY legitimate source for the specs, up to the point when it is proven that those specs aren't available. Then it is the duty of the club to determine the correct info.

[JoshS]

TISote=GKR_17;307779]They may sell it at the dealer, but that does not make it the factory manual. The E36 factory manual came on microfiche (and later CD I believe). Not sure on the Z3.[/quote]

Same for the Z3, but it's not available to the public that way. The only service manual available to the public is the Bentley.

Of course as you know, there are older, pirated versions of the TIS CDs available on eBay. Illegal to have but "more official."

In my opinion, the Bentley is totally okay for these cars ... it's what BMW intended "us" to have.

[Greg Amy]

The Bentley is the factory manual for all Volkswagens and Audis. Period.

You go to a service department at the dealership and look on their shelves, that's what's there. Fact.

Now, if we're talking hypothetical here, and we're to assume that BMW (or Porsche, or whomever) contracted someone else to do their factory-issued workshop manuals and they use some other system than Bentley as the official factory documentation, then yes, you're correct, that would not be adequate in a protest or compliance situation, no more than a cheesy Chilton's would be for a Golf GTi.

But factory is factory; for VWoA, that means Robert Bentley Publications.

GA

[Z3_GoCar]

The Bentley is the factory manual for all Volkswagens and Audis. Period.

You go to a service department at the dealership and look on their shelves, that's what's there. Fact.

Now, if we're talking hypothetical here, and we're to assume that BMW (or Porsche, or whomever) contracted someone else to do their factory-issued workshop manuals and they use some other system than Bentley as the official factory documentation, then yes, you're correct, that would not be adequate in a protest or compliance situation, no more than a cheesy Chilton's would be for a Golf GTi.

But factory is factory; for VWoA, that means Robert Bentley Publications.

GA

Here's the rub... If you go to the dealer and try to purchase what they have on their shelf, it's not for sale. Only the Bentley manual is sold by the parts department. Now, some disgrutled former employees have stolen what's not for sale and made illegal copies that are for sale on e-bay. Furthermore, there are some factory performed repairs that are not noted even in these dealer only documentation. This knowledge is retained by regional service advisors. I'd rather not break copywrite laws to satisfy some compition spec.

[Greg Amy]

Only the Bentley manual is sold by the [dealership] parts department.
Then that is, de facto and de jure for SCCA scrutineering purposes, the "factory shop manual".

GA

[Chip42]

and here we see why the questions we ask never get answered for sake of debating a sidebar.

1) the factory workshop OR ALTERNATIVE IF THE FACTORY MANUAL IS NOT AVAILABLE is the required, competitor provided document for ALL scrutineering inquiries, even to the extent of over riding the ITCS. if you disagree on what constitues a factory service manual, start another thread.

2) the ITCS spec line contains X data. what of that is of use to US as racers, scrutineers, rules makers, or other club specialty or interest? would more or less info be of value to US? could arranging it in an alternate way or combinging lines where applicable help US to read, use, enforce, edit or maintain this information?

Josh and the ITAC might be asking this in order to help US. I for one think many of the ITCS speclines are a mess and would love to see a global revision that brings them up to date and aleviates all of the artificial limits and disagreements between otherwise identical classifications.

[almskidd]

Does anyone think there is big value in having car specs listed in the ITCS?

Yes. As many people have already said the value is in having one place to have a quick comparison of all the spec'ed cars in IT.

[JoshS]

Josh and the ITAC might be asking this in order to help US.

Actually, that was just me asking, not the ITAC, but if something swayed me I'd bring it up to the committee. My motivation was that I'm frustrated with how hard it can be to put together new spec lines, and fix old ones, and it's not clear to me what purpose the specs serve anyway. As far as I can tell, the printed specs are not binding, other than weight and wheel diameter, which are explicitly referenced in the allowances. What everyone is required to work from is what the factory says the specs are, not what the SCCA says the specs are.

For reference, the wheel and weight references: 9.1.3.D.7.a.1, "Cars may not fit wheel diameters smaller than those listed on their spec line", and 9.3.50, "All cars shall meet or exceed the minimum weight specified with driver, exactly as they come off the race circuit, at the conclusion of a race or qualifying session." I don't think any of the other specs in the book have a rule that specifically references them.

The comments that the specs are useful when assessing the class are good though.

I'm starting to think that maybe we don't need to try so hard to get the specs right. For example, we have an active letter right now asking us to include the Neon non-ACR rear brake sizes on the Neon spec line, because the non-ACR is intended to be legal, but only the ACR brake sizes are listed. So the question is ... does it really matter?

[JeffYoung]

For a protest, no, at the end of the day it does not. If the protestee can prove he has a brake size on his car that came on a car on his spec line, then he's good to go regardless of what the spec says.

I still use the ITCS specs just as a reference, to assess competitiveness, to get a basic understanding of a car's specs, and to compare it to others.

I fully agree we should try to get them as 'right" as we can, and as Chip notes a lot of them are a mess, but I don't think a fly speccing of the entire ITCS is needed.

[Chip42]

if things like brakes and gearing aren't hard allowances, then why are they listed at all?

If all you want are the make, model + trim, weight, wheels and notes, then reduce it to such. I'd add engine configuration and dimensions just because there are cars that have optional engines that are not trim-level specific. this would instantly clean up errors in at least 10 classification in ITA alone.

[rsportvolvo]

However, in this day and age, why not publish a separate PDF in the rules section on the web page with all the VTS info? If a competitor wants a handy comparo, they download it.

Ditto on this. SCCA Pro has the VTS sheets listed this way and this is also how the FIA classifies cars. Rule books should be class specific with separate docs. for specific vehicles. Additionally the VTS will list more information to see how the car stacks up against the rest of the field. More info, better organization.

[lateapex911]

Personally, I like having the data available. Having the VTS available would do the same thing...but since the VTS and the data are required to class the car, copying a few of the specs to the ITCS doesn't seem like that big of a deal, and it's good to have. So, one vote in favor of "keeping, but adding VTS availability".

But, my BIGGEST vote would be to, on every weight listing, specify HOW it was arrived at.
For example:
1969 Triumph herald. ITB, weight 2535, NKM (No Known Method)

1985 Mazda RX-7, ITA: 2280. Process V1, 101 Hp x Special multiplier of 1.6 x 14.5 ITA factor, -50lbs Tq 3/2006

2006 Mazda RX-8, ITR, 2850, Process V2, 215 wHp (committee research) x 11.25 ITR factor, -100 tq. 6/2009

1998 Honda Civic QR, ITB: 2450, Process V2, 115hp x 1.25 x 17 ITB factor -2% FWD, +50 Susp. 6/2010

It shows the starting hp assumed, the factor, adders, and any deviation in methods, as well as date of calculation. (I made the Honda one up)

[joeg]

A Triumph Herald...hmmm.

[seckerich]

A Triumph Herald...hmmm.

It does have the small chamber, high compression head.:D

[JeffYoung]

Steve, that's your next project. Triumph DOMINATION of ITB.

[Greg Amy]

Huh. "Triumph" and "DOMINATION" (capitalized, no less) in the same sentence...

Neat.

[JeffYoung]

Well, he said something about "high compression." That means it wins right?

[Greg Amy]

Apparently.

GA, who still harbors pleasant thoughts about the Group 44 TR8s....

On edit: And to finalize this thread 'jack:

http://forum.britishv8.org/file.php?9,file=1756,in_body_attachment=1

[seckerich]

The best time to jack a thread is when panties are all getting bunched.:p

[Z3_GoCar]

Steve, that's your next project. Triumph DOLOMITE of ITB.

Jeff, fixed that for ya'

Now where's that Pimp-Kane??

Greg, what happened to your picture??

[Eric Parham]

I also like having the data on the spec line for quick comparisons. Unfortunately, the spec line data is very often erroneous, and other times possibly correct but in conflict with the factory shop manuals (e.g., ALL 5 spec lines for ITA VW brake specs). As far as protests go, I understand that the protested competitor should be fine as long as s/he can show acceptable documentation for the spec (hence, the general requirement for at least the factory shop manual, but additional credible documentation can’t hurt), OR that the protested item meets the ITCS spec line (and this is really where the alternate specs from such additional credible documentation should already be listed).

Many times the most prevalent correct specs aren't listed at all on the ITCS spec line. With the current format, we're often left wondering whether the different listed specs are erroneous, or whether evidence was provided apart from the shop manuals to support the alternate specs. Personally, my rule of thumb has been to assume that anything on the spec line “better” than what’s in the shop manual is a legitimate (or otherwise allowed) alternate spec, but that anything on the spec line that is “worse” than what’s in the shop manual (or separate owners manual) is an error or misprint. Unfortunately, "better" versus "worse" is not always crystal clear, such as larger brake diameter versus heavier brakes, etc.

In cases of actual errors, most competitors seem content to let sleeping dogs lie (especially if the erroneous spec is “better”), while others sleep better if they can get the errors on the ITCS spec line corrected. Lately, I’ve been wondering whether erroneous “better” specs should be corrected so that performance projections, classing and weight adjustments might become more accurate.

Thus, I think the best solution would be to specifically note a spec as "Alt:" when it is not found in the standard/accepted factory shop manual(s) -- I think it actually used to be done this way. An even better solution would be to cite the source of each primary and alternate spec. To limit competitor reliance on alternate specs without alienating those who already use them, perhaps a nominal weight increase should be specified for each one :)

EDIT: If we really wanted to clear up many of these errors quickly, perhaps we could require every competitor to "declare" any specs on their car that do not match the current spec line (other than weight), and to provide a comment as to why they believe that their spec is correct. Such declarations could be posted for peer review, or just for someone to collect and forward to ITAC for use in checking the accuracy of the various ITCS spec lines.

[JoshS]

Thus, I think the best solution would be to specifically note a spec as "Alt:" when it is not found in the standard/accepted factory shop manual(s) -- I think it actually used to be done this way. An even better solution would be to cite the source of each primary and alternate spec. To limit competitor reliance on alternate specs without alienating those who already use them, perhaps a nominal weight increase should be specified for each one :)

Eric, that was well-reasoned. But it's my belief (although admittedly I don't really know for sure) that none of the specs are intended to replace a stock spec. That is to say, nothing in there would qualify as "Alt:". If anything differs from stock (and yes, I've seen lots of examples), I believe that they are errors.

The ITAC did get your letter about fixing the VW specs and we will do so.