THE BACK ROOM or ....

[pfcs]

phil are you actually proposing adjusting weights of individual cars based on what we see on a radar gun at a given track?
No. But I believe the information would be pretty enlightening and would be valuable-it wouldn't be rumor, opinion, etc but empirical information. It could very well foward the process a lot more than all the ruminations of the various talking heads on this forum-this conversation is as much about how this has been wrongly/wrongheadedly handled as it it about what works. I say, if what you're doing isn't working, do something different.

and for the third time.....where did you get this document?
If you haven't guessed yet, I'm not planning to tell.

"Which is why even in the instructor HPDE groups I pass a LOT faster cars? I mean these high end porsches with uber HP and an ITB car?
You're a Lime Rock guy. There isn't a big difference in straight speeds depending upon how fast the downhill is taken? Really?"
Limerock may be a little exceptional but peak V is still largely a function of power. I've passed beginners & bozzos too. They're slow at both ends of the straight, but peak V is higher than mine every time-from pwr/wt! (Most IT guys aren't in that group, either). WGI? Mid Ohio? Unless you park it in the turns, it means a LOT.
And it would be easily collected and looked at.

Gee-look at all that's been posted while I typed!

[Andy Bettencourt]

phil are you actually proposing adjusting weights of individual cars based on what we see on a radar gun at a given track?

and for the third time.....where did you get this document?

Trav,

It's on the SCCA site.

I bet you have to be logged in as a member:

https://ams.scca.com/netforum/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=scca&WebKey=90167081-e069-48e7-a593-86c36fe51c1c

[tnord]

i'm under the impression he got a hold of it before it was on the SCCA site Andy.

phil doesn't have to answer for me to have a pretty good idea. i don't really believe in coincidences. i ask not because it matters that it's out there (since as you mentioned, the whole thing is available on the SCCA site), but because someone isn't trustworthy.

[tnord]

No. But I believe the information would be pretty enlightening and would be valuable-it wouldn't be rumor, opinion, etc but empirical information. It could very well foward the process a lot more than all the ruminations of the various talking heads on this forum-this conversation is as much about how this has been wrongly/wrongheadedly handled as it it about what works. I say, if what you're doing isn't working, do something different.


hogwash. the same cheater volvos that resulted in misleading power data would lead to misleading trap speed data.

and what we're doing is working. look at the fields regardless of where you used to/currently are finishing.

[lateapex911]

he got a hold of and published it here before it was on the SCCA site, or the ITAC had a chance to announce it, Andy.

phil doesn't have to answer for me to have a pretty good idea. i don't really believe in coincidences. i ask not because it matters that it's out there (since as you mentioned, the whole thing is available on the SCCA site), but because someone isn't trustworthy.
fixed.

That it was out and published does suggest it and other things are being distributed back channel..

[gran racing]

WGI? Mid Ohio? Unless you park it in the turns, it means a LOT.

Too many variables still. Does one throw out any numbers seen when a driver gets a good tow? At the Glen when I've gotten behind an SSM, my back straight speeds are quite different. Then would these numbers only be compared to other cars at the track that day?

Okay, so maybe if the same data acq system were used by all competitors, you one could gain some resemblance of useable information.

[lateapex911]

Well, Trav, you are more in the know than us. But the chicken and egg thing does come up those of us who are in the dark. Such as, was it published publicly BECAUSE it was leaked? As in, "Well, it's out, might as well make it official"?

And if YOU didn't know it would be published, Trav, I'd assume most/all of the ITAC wouldn't know either...so I imagine it shouldn't be landing in non ITAC members mailboxes.
Still. I'm glad it's out. I don't have to be all secretive anymore, LOL.

[Greg Amy]

Is Phil the "Julian Assange" of Improved Touring...?

[JeffYoung]

He wants to be.

Hey, I'm glad the thing is out, and especially that most seem happy with large portions of it. All we could ask for.

I do wish someone had told us when it went up on the SCCA site, so Josh could have announced it here.

The fact that it got out this way, rather than from us, makes it look like we didn't want folks to see it when in fact we expressly voted that we did and planned on making it available to all.

Just some frustration over that on my part, and why I wish Phil, apparently a 55 year old adult, would stop playing spy v. spy games over a hobby.

Jeff

[lateapex911]

He wants to be.

Hey, I'm glad the thing is out, and especially that most seem happy with large portions of it. All we could ask for.

I do wish someone had told us when it went up on the SCCA site, so Josh could have announced it here.

The fact that it got out this way, rather than from us, makes it look like we didn't want folks to see it when in fact we expressly voted that we did and planned on making it available to all.

Just some frustration over that on my part, and why I wish Phil, apparently a 55 year old adult, would stop playing spy v. spy games over a hobby.

Jeff

Great to hear.
Yes, I can certainly see your frustrations!

[Knestis]

Is Phil the "Julian Assange" of Improved Touring...?

Jeff is trying to work out extradition to NC...

:happy204:

K

[Bill Miller]

Wow, I go away for a couple of weeks, and I miss all the fun!

Really nice to see the Process documented, codified, and published. Hard to believe it's taken almost 10 years to get to this. Regardless, :023:

I would like to see a clause in there that would require a note on the spec line as to the reasoning behind why a deviation from the process weight is used. For example "Power factor set a 1.29 based on dyno results of x (minimum 5) cars."

Looks simple and straight-forward, which is a good thing. I still think the 30% factor for multi-valve cars only in B & C is BS, but I'm guess that there are enough folks out there that feel the same way, so letters should be forthcoming. I honestly don't see how it can stand up to any kind of rigorous analysis as to why it was done.

I still laugh when I hear the "But it's an Atlantic motor" line. Funny that people only trotted that out for the MR2, but you never heard a peep when they moved the FX16 to ITB (which also runs a 4A-GE motor).

I feel for the Volvo guys, nothing solid to go on. Good thing nobody in ITC is running a Cortina! But, that's just one more reason why you need to be able to process cars where you have any kind of reliable, comparable published data.

I'm guessing that this guide was not in place prior to the issuance of the March FasTrack. Otherwise I would have expected more detailed explanation as to why the 2.3L Audi GT's lost 50# and the 2.2L version didn't change at all, yet both appear to be 200# above the process weight as determined by the formula in the Operations Guide.

As far as the main operations manual compelling people to remove themselves from discussions that would directly impact them (and to me, that's either their car, or a car in the their class), I think it's safe to say that that doesn't always happen.

[Rabbit05]

Bill..

....see march fast track thread....

The 85-87 2.2 "big brake cars" lost 50 lbs..the early coupe lost zero. And I agree..the cars should be much much lighter , according to the new process.

-John

[JeffYoung]

It depends entirely on the correct stock hp.


Bill..

....see march fast track thread....

The 85-87 2.2 "big brake cars" lost 50 lbs..the early coupe lost zero. And I agree..the cars should be much much lighter , according to the new process.

-John

[Bill Miller]

Hadn't gotten to the FasTrack thread yet.

I have to go back and check when the move dates were, but how many of today's top ITB cars were ITA cars in '05? I'm pretty sure the Prelude was still in ITA, and I don't remember when the moved the Accord, and I know the Golf III move was right around there (maybe '04).

[iambhooper]

copy saved... thanks!

[Andy Bettencourt]

No more posts until Phil tells us where he got the document. Should be no problem if it was above board.

<---- Doubts that.

[jjjanos]

WTF does it matter from where he got the document? I mean, unless one has something to hide, there is no point in keeping the document hidden.

Smart money says the source is either an ITAC or CRB member opposed to "the process."

[Andy Bettencourt]

WTF does it matter from where he got the document? I mean, unless one has something to hide, there is no point in keeping the document hidden.

Smart money says the source is either an ITAC or CRB member opposed to "the process."

It doesn't matter at all, just teh fact he refused to answer is a punk move.

And since it's ON the SCCA website, it's obvious nobody has anything to hide but him...and your smart money would be lost. It's not a BAD thing it got out. It was intended to be published.

[preparedcivic]

Smart money says the source is either an ITAC or CRB member opposed to "the process."

That's what it has to be. Where else would the document have been in circulation? BoD level? That's a stretch.

[jjjanos]

It doesn't matter at all, just teh fact he refused to answer is a punk move.

I disagree. If I had an inside source to a body whose decisions historically have been shrouded, NFW would I reveal that source.



And since it's ON the SCCA website, it's obvious nobody has anything to hide but him...and your smart money would be lost. It's not a BAD thing it got out. It was intended to be published.

Well, the question is whether it's on the SCCA because it already was out or because SCCA was going to post it at some point.

Given that the document, created by Josh on 29November2010 at 4:27PM using Microsoft Word, had been kept underwraps for 2+ months, I do not think it is a slamdunk that this would have seen the light of day in time for the membership to discuss its merits.

[Knestis]

I disagree. If I had an inside source to a body whose decisions historically have been shrouded, NFW would I reveal that source. ...

That social imperative was driving the CRB-ITAC-Member dysfunction prior to The Schism and is THE key reason I left the ITAC. When you play that game, you are officially part of the problem, Jeff.

K

[dickita15]

I disagree. If I had an inside source to a body whose decisions historically have been shrouded, NFW would I reveal that source.



Well, the question is whether it's on the SCCA because it already was out or because SCCA was going to post it at some point.

Given that the document, created by Josh on 29November2010 at 4:27PM using Microsoft Word, had been kept underwraps for 2+ months, I do not think it is a slamdunk that this would have seen the light of day in time for the membership to discuss its merits.

You would be wrong. I believe it was January (might have been December) that the ITAC voted to recommend the opps manual. February 1st the CRB voted to adopt and to publish and it was scheduled to be posted with fastrack on or about the 20th. On the 17th Phil posts it. Dumb.
I am certainly curious who gave it to Phil although Phil’s role here is unimportant, he is just someone’s pawn.

[jjjanos]

That social imperative was driving the CRB-ITAC-Member dysfunction prior to The Schism and is THE key reason I left the ITAC. When you play that game, you are officially part of the problem, Jeff.

I would say the problem is neither having an inside source or being one. The problem would be the need for an inside source.


You would be wrong. I believe it was January (might have been December) that the ITAC voted to recommend the opps manual. February 1st the CRB voted to adopt and to publish and it was scheduled to be posted with fastrack on or about the 20th. On the 17th Phil posts it. Dumb.

Just went by the information in the document as to the date it was created. NADA about it in Fastrack as far as I could tell.

[Knestis]

I would say the problem is neither having an inside source or being one. The problem would be the need for an inside source. ...

No argument from me but if someone is playing the game, they perpetuate the need. There were several times when I was on the ITAC when I told people not to share anything with me that they didn't want everyone to know.

Regardless, your perceptions are smack on re: the issue...

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am certainly curious who gave it to Phil although Phil’s role here is unimportant, he is just someone’s pawn.

We all can see Phil is just a pawn, it would just be nice to know the source to laugh at them too. It's obvious the document was intended to be published and to think the SCCA could/would react this quick is funny. "OMG, someone leaked the ITPD, we had better get it up on the SCCA site asap"... LMAO.

Who cares. It's finally out, cudos to the CRB for letting it happen.

[JeffYoung]

Dick, thank you for making that clear.

I guess JJJ thought we were lying when we posted that we had voted to publish.


You would be wrong. I believe it was January (might have been December) that the ITAC voted to recommend the opps manual. February 1st the CRB voted to adopt and to publish and it was scheduled to be posted with fastrack on or about the 20th. On the 17th Phil posts it. Dumb.
I am certainly curious who gave it to Phil although Phil’s role here is unimportant, he is just someone’s pawn.

[jjjanos]

Dick, thank you for making that clear.

I guess JJJ thought we were lying when we posted that we had voted to publish.

Didn't recall seeing that.
Pretty sure that what the ITAC decides to do means dick. You answer to the Sith Lords of the CRB.

[JeffYoung]

I can't remember which thread this needs to go in, but the manual has arrived.

85-87 KX motor is listed as 110 BHP (SAE Net).

Who wants a brand spanking new Audi 4000/Coupe 84-87 manual?

[gran racing]

Me, me, me! Then again I'll just modify those pages to show 130 SAGran and sell it to Ray. Or shall I send it to John?

[RSTPerformance]

Me, me, me! Then again I'll just modify those pages to show 130 SAGran and sell it to Ray. Or shall I send it to John?


Dave.. If it said 90hp then it would be worth something!!!!

[gran racing]

Somewhat forgot about this but guess it's still in progress, 13 plus months later. Still never saw anything in print about the Accord weight adjustment. lol


Mon, April 9, 2012 9:00:19 PMSCCA Letter #4229 Update

From:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Dave Gran,
Your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and a recommendation has been made to the CRB. The CRB will review your letter and the IT committee's recommendation on their next conference call. Your letter details are below:

Letter #4229
Title: Multivalve Adder
Request: Eliminate the default 30% gain&nbsp;above stock horsepower in IT trim for multivalve engines when processing ITB and ITC cars. Instead, assume a gain of 35% above stock horsepower in IT trim while still allowing the ITAC to use protocol in the documented ITAC Operations Manual to adjust accordingly. I see no way in which this rule makes sense especially given that the design benefits are already factored into stock HP. If after further discussions the ITAC votes that a multivalve adder should still be in place, it needs to be further defined and utilized. As an amendment to the Operations Manual, define what multivalve engines this increased 5% applies to &ndash; 3 valve and/or 4 valve engines. Additionally, if the multivalve truly deserves an automatic increase in expected gains the factor needs to be applied to ITR, ITS, and ITA even if on a sliding scale. There is no reason
why a multivalve ITB car gains 5% by this design yet an ITA car has no advantage.Thank you for taking the time to review and discussing this request.


Thank you,

CRB

[lateapex911]

I too wrote a letter so long ago I'd actually forgotten about it. It requested that a 4 valve 125hp car in ITB carry the same factor (25%) that a 4valve 125hp car in ITA has. 25%.

It has been sent to the CRB with a ITAC recommendation.

I assume it was held up in the larger ITB dissection.

[Rabbit05]

I can't remember which thread this needs to go in, but the manual has arrived.

85-87 KX motor is listed as 110 BHP (SAE Net).

Who wants a brand spanking new Audi 4000/Coupe 84-87 manual?


Jeff,
I don't need another book. Does this mean that now the car weight will be recalculated to the proper HP number. Or will I need to resend a letter to the crb or itac ?

-John

[Bill Miller]

Somewhat forgot about this but guess it's still in progress, 13 plus months later. Still never saw anything in print about the Accord weight adjustment. lol


Mon, April 9, 2012 9:00:19 PMSCCA Letter #4229 Update

From:"[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Dave Gran,
Your letter has been reviewed by the IT committee, and a recommendation has been made to the CRB. The CRB will review your letter and the IT committee's recommendation on their next conference call. Your letter details are below:

Letter #4229
Title: Multivalve Adder
Request: Eliminate the default 30% gain&nbsp;above stock horsepower in IT trim for multivalve engines when processing ITB and ITC cars. Instead, assume a gain of 35% above stock horsepower in IT trim while still allowing the ITAC to use protocol in the documented ITAC Operations Manual to adjust accordingly. I see no way in which this rule makes sense especially given that the design benefits are already factored into stock HP. If after further discussions the ITAC votes that a multivalve adder should still be in place, it needs to be further defined and utilized. As an amendment to the Operations Manual, define what multivalve engines this increased 5% applies to &ndash; 3 valve and/or 4 valve engines. Additionally, if the multivalve truly deserves an automatic increase in expected gains the factor needs to be applied to ITR, ITS, and ITA even if on a sliding scale. There is no reason
why a multivalve ITB car gains 5% by this design yet an ITA car has no advantage.Thank you for taking the time to review and discussing this request.


Thank you,

CRB

Dave,

You really asked for a 35% gain, or was that a typo? BTW, I applaud you writing that letter. Let's see what happens. I totally agree that you can't say an ITB/C 3-4 valve car will make a higher percentage gain that an ITR/S/A 3-4 valve car

[gran racing]

Typo. :( But I quickly sent communications to the ITAC and CRB to ensure they were aware of the correct 25% percentage I meant to type. Although I wouldn't be totally shocked it if gets rejected with that as an excuse as that got lost (I did get written confirmation that they received the correct percentage.)

Page 10, post 184 of this thread is when I submitted that and the Accord.

[JeffYoung]

John, manual's still sitting on my floor -- sorry about that.

We've discussed the issue with the Audi stock hp and don't have a solution yet. The 110 hp is in the manual, the 120 (I think) is in the internal Audi document. Not clear either way.

Dave/Jake/Bill:

I think most of us on the ITAC do not prefer the 30% multivavle adder in ITB. At the same time, it's there, it's in the Ops Manual, and its been used to process cars for a while now. For consistencies sake, we will not revisit it.

HOWEVER - I think all of us will take a harder look at a multivalve motor in B to see if the 30% makes sense as a default than we would with a 25% default motor in any other clause.

Last, we made the recommendation to add (100?) weight to the Accord and I believe it passed and was in Fastrack. We've already gotten letters to change it back.....

[tom91ita]

...........
Last, we made the recommendation to add (100?) weight to the Accord and I believe it passed and was in Fastrack. We've already gotten letters to change it back.....

when i submitted letter # 1333, the accord was 2550 #'s. it is now 2650.

i just got an update regarding my evap emissions letter. i responded that updates to me are no longer necessary since i am no longer a member.

perhaps not 100% accurate since i intend to be a weekend member at a couple of races this year and must comply with the rules for the class i enter.

[Bill Miller]

I think most of us on the ITAC do not prefer the 30% multivavle adder in ITB. At the same time, it's there, it's in the Ops Manual, and its been used to process cars for a while now. For consistencies sake, we will not revisit it.




Well ok then.:o

[Chip42]

Re: the 30% thing, I'm one of the biggest critics around, having the poster child car for it's failing: the MR2. I never miss an opportunity to express my displeasure with it on comittee, and I have been equally loud here when the topic was being raised.

that said, it's a happy coincidence that MANY of the cars run with that number are either making their 30% (or higher) process number, or have enough other "mojo" working for them that they are doing well regardless. same is true for many "default" 25% cars accross IT land, many of which are doing very well despite not matching perfectly with their number. there's a lot of variables at play, and the process is intentionally simple, so it doesnt' have a lot of inputs.

for now, political winds are not with a change to the 30% rule. I'm not happy about that but it's the case. luckily we do have the presence of mind, now, to really dig in any case where this number would be applied as a default to make sure that it "makes sense". maybe fortunately, we haven't had occasion to do so recently.

[ajmr2]

Re: the 30% thing, I'm one of the biggest critics around, having the poster child car for it's failing: the MR2. I never miss an opportunity to express my displeasure with it on comittee, and I have been equally loud here when the topic was being raised.

Thanks again for all your support, Chip.

So after more than a year, almost 300 posts and SEVENTEEN THOUSAND views just on this thread, we're still debating this???

:dead_horse:

[JeffYoung]

People are passionate about IT, hence the debates. Can be frustrating but a healthy sign in many ways I think.

On the 30% in ITB adder, I actually think (and I disagree with it as well) that its potential harmful impact has been mitigated pretty well.

I think this committee is going to look long and hard at any multivalve car in ITB before it gets the 30%, and we have data out there to support a different decision we will use it. Plus, by sheer luck, most cars (other than the MR2, and a few others) do actually make 30% with a multivalve motor. So the impact has not been as great as it otherwise might be although I agree the MR2 has had it rough from the start.

[lateapex911]

Last, we made the recommendation to add (100?) weight to the Accord and I believe it passed and was in Fastrack. We've already gotten letters to change it back.....

Jeff, I understand the situation the ITAC finds itself in, and I'm sure it's frustrating.

Glad to hear the Accord was adjusted in line with the rest of the cars though. I wonder who's sending in letters?
Live by the sword, die by the sword......

[Bill Miller]

People are passionate about IT, hence the debates. Can be frustrating but a healthy sign in many ways I think.

On the 30% in ITB adder, I actually think (and I disagree with it as well) that its potential harmful impact has been mitigated pretty well.

I think this committee is going to look long and hard at any multivalve car in ITB before it gets the 30%, and we have data out there to support a different decision we will use it. Plus, by sheer luck, most cars (other than the MR2, and a few others) do actually make 30% with a multivalve motor. So the impact has not been as great as it otherwise might be although I agree the MR2 has had it rough from the start.

What about the A/S/R multi-valve cars? Are they only making 25%?

[Chip42]

What about the A/S/R multi-valve cars? Are they only making 25%?

some are "making" 10 or 15% (ITR S2000's, no idea what actual HP is). but yeah, every other class defaults to 25% unless it's a rotary or a strait 6. that last point is just as silly as the multivalve rule and is also vetted thoroughly when called upon.

[lateapex911]

Also, I failed to thank you Jeff and Chip, in my earlier post, for hanging with us and shining some sunlight into the 'back room'. Much appreciated.

[JeffYoung]

What about the A/S/R multi-valve cars? Are they only making 25%?

C'mon now -- we all know the logical inconsistencies in the rule. Some aren't happy about it, but guess what? That's committee work. If everyone is happy about it all the time then something is probably wrong.

[gran racing]

So after more than a year, almost 300 posts and SEVENTEEN THOUSAND views just on this thread, we're still debating this???

No Art, I just happened to receive an e-mail that my request to review it from more than a year ago is being reviewed by the CRB. I truly don't care about it anymore although still think it's dumb. While I may have confidence in one ITAC group, who knows about the next and as said it's in the books. The debate is done, moving on.