May 2011 Fastrack

[JoshS]

And I believe Mr. Young is suggesting (and you are agreeing) that those deliberations should never be revealed, either in an official publication or unofficially. And that's a problem from where I sit. We get crap like the Audi and not knowing why.

No, I don't think either Jeff nor I would agree with that statement. I would always share my own thinking on any topic and will share some of the deliberations. That's why when I was chair I offered for ANYONE to call me to discuss these things at any time. Only a few of you ever took me up on the offer. A live dialogue just works a lot better than an internet discussion, it allows for misunderstandings to be corrected in seconds, which is why I preferred to do it that way.

As chair, what I directed the committee to do was not to share specific other individual's opinions, as they aren't part of the conversation to speak up for their beliefs. That is, I didn't want committee members putting words into other committee member's mouths. It's fine to do what you suggested: "we had information supporting X, Y, or Z, and we chose Z because ...", but it's not okay to say, "That idiot Barney Fife just has his head up his ass and can't understand that the blinker fluid allowance isn't the same conversation that it was 15 years ago". It's not even okay to say that, "I was fully in support of allowing alternate blinker fluid, but Barney Fife just can't be convinced." I'd rather someone just say that, "I was fully in support of alternate blinker fluid, but the majority ruled the other way. Please call the other members to get their take."

[lateapex911]

write the CRB and get me booted off then jake.

then once i'm gone, and you insist on making discussions and voting a matter of public record, have fun finding a replacement that's willing to deal with the likes of blethen, miller, janoska, etc on a daily basis.

Really? You sure presented a thicker skin earlier in the game, Trav. ;)

Seriously, not one of the guys that resigned did so because of having to deal with the members. It's just not that hard.

[Greg Amy]

I would always share my own thinking on any topic and will share some of the deliberations. That's why when I was chair I offered for ANYONE to call me to discuss these things at any time. Only a few of you ever took me up on the offer. A live dialogue just works a lot better than an internet discussion, it allows for misunderstandings to be corrected in seconds, which is why I preferred to do it that way.

As chair, what I directed the committee to do was not to share specific other individual's opinions, as they aren't part of the conversation to speak up for their beliefs. That is, I didn't want committee members putting words into other committee member's mouths. It's fine to do what you suggested: "we had information supporting X, Y, or Z, and we chose Z because ...", but it's not okay to say, "That idiot Barney Fife just has his head up his ass and can't understand that the blinker fluid allowance isn't the same conversation that it was 15 years ago". It's not even okay to say that, "I was fully in support of allowing alternate blinker fluid, but Barney Fife just can't be convinced." I'd rather someone just say that, "I was fully in support of alternate blinker fluid, but the majority ruled the other way. Please call the other members to get their take."

+1.

Same for me on the STAC: I'll be glad to give you my personal opinion on any matter discussed by the committee, but I'm not going to detail the positions or arguments of any the other individuals. I'll tell you my inference of the substance of the opposing arguments, but if you want to know their individual positions and details, you're free to call them directly.

And that's reasonable.

GA

[JeffYoung]

Agreed 100%.


No, I don't think either Jeff nor I would agree with that statement. I would always share my own thinking on any topic and will share some of the deliberations. That's why when I was chair I offered for ANYONE to call me to discuss these things at any time. Only a few of you ever took me up on the offer. A live dialogue just works a lot better than an internet discussion, it allows for misunderstandings to be corrected in seconds, which is why I preferred to do it that way.

As chair, what I directed the committee to do was not to share specific other individual's opinions, as they aren't part of the conversation to speak up for their beliefs. That is, I didn't want committee members putting words into other committee member's mouths. It's fine to do what you suggested: "we had information supporting X, Y, or Z, and we chose Z because ...", but it's not okay to say, "That idiot Barney Fife just has his head up his ass and can't understand that the blinker fluid allowance isn't the same conversation that it was 15 years ago". It's not even okay to say that, "I was fully in support of allowing alternate blinker fluid, but Barney Fife just can't be convinced." I'd rather someone just say that, "I was fully in support of alternate blinker fluid, but the majority ruled the other way. Please call the other members to get their take."

[lateapex911]

Jeff, you are the reasonable guy of reasonable guys on this matter.
I appreciate your views on the MR2 thing. Heck I don't give two hoots personally about the car...I don't own one, I don't race against one, and I never plan an ITB effort, so I'm not sure why I should care about it.

But I do. Your view is similar to mine, 15% EXCEEDS the most aggressive builds we've seen. So 15% is a reasonable juncture between accurate and conservative.

But 25%? Ridiculous. Is it POSSIBLE? Well, the ITAC is saying yes, because the public hasn't built 3 or 4 (!!!!) full tilt engines to the ITACs level of satisfaction to prove it's not. (Insert the old proving a negative comment). And guess what, tehy WON'T. because they've been dicked over for so long on this matter, and because they haven't gotten a good reason for the current classification, that tehy have no faith that if they DID spend $10K, that they'd get the result from the ITAC that would make it worth it.

Whoever on the ITAC it is who thinks that's a fair and reasonable plan is somebody who cares nothing about classing the car correctly, or has other motives. Really, when you think about it what's the harm in classing it correctly? The RX8 was handled properly, and last I checked, nobody's ripping it up and dominating in THAT car. Nor is there a land rush to build them!

The 10% represents what, about 10hp? Thats 170 ITB pounds. A pretty significant amount.

And even if the car were to dominate at 15%, ...you have the mechanism to fix it.

So I really don't get it. Makes NO sense why the ITAC is being so stubborn about this. And those who voted against won't stand up and explain themselves.

[lateapex911]

+1.

Same for me on the STAC: I'll be glad to give you my personal opinion on any matter discussed by the committee, but I'm not going to detail the positions or arguments of any the other individuals. I'll tell you my inference of the substance of the opposing arguments, but if you want to know their individual positions and details, you're free to call them directly.

And that's reasonable.

GA

Right, I see that. But, in the case of the MR2, who can I call? Nobody's fessin up, LOL, and I don't know who voted what.....
With a system that shields committee members, there's little accountability to the members.

[Greg Amy]

With a system that shields committee members, there's little accountability to the members.
That's absolutely correct. If I and every other STAC member chose to clam up, you'd know nothing...

So the Club can handle this one of two ways:

- Change the rules to force release of the minutes (unlikely), or
- Change the committee members to those more likely to lean "our" direction (much easier).

No matter what band of crack criminals you put together, you're always unlikely to be 100% clammed-up; someone eventually breaks ranks and rats out the rest, usually in pursuit of their own self interests. That's when society pounces... - GA

[JeffYoung]

I understand where you are coming from.

Let me add this though. I think that there has been something of a shift on the committee and its thinking since you left. I think we are much more willing to stick with the default number, and less likely to move (or move off of it a lot), than in the past. We also, I think -- speaking for me and my perception of the rest of the committee -- require more proof of "what we know" to make that change than we did in the past.

And that is going to make changes on cars that can't get to 25% difficult, I agree, but I think it is the right thing to do.

Here we have 6-8 dyno sheets showing, in my personal opinion, gains in the 12 to (IIRC) 14% range, meaning 15% is "proveable" via dyno data. Having read what little information we have about those builds, I certainly think 20% is possible. Might not be likely, but it is possible.

I don't fully understand the reasons why those who decided on 25% did so. My inference, to use Greg's word, is that they were simply concerned the dyno data was not conclusive (reasonable) and refused to move as much as I did (also reasonable).

I think we have to respect that position, and if you disagre keep submitting information to the contrary.

I think the good news is that we are now arguing/discussing things about how the Process shoudl be applied to a particular car, rather than arguing whether it is a good idea or not at all. That to me is significant progress.


Jeff, you are the reasonable guy of reasonable guys on this matter.
I appreciate your views on the MR2 thing. Heck I don't give two hoots personally about the car...I don't own one, I don't race against one, and I never plan an ITB effort, so I'm not sure why I should care about it.

But I do. Your view is similar to mine, 15% EXCEEDS the most aggressive builds we've seen. So 15% is a reasonable juncture between accurate and conservative.

But 25%? Ridiculous. Is it POSSIBLE? Well, the ITAC is saying yes, because the public hasn't built 3 or 4 (!!!!) full tilt engines to the ITACs level of satisfaction to prove it's not. (Insert the old proving a negative comment). And guess what, tehy WON'T. because they've been dicked over for so long on this matter, and because they haven't gotten a good reason for the current classification, that tehy have no faith that if they DID spend $10K, that they'd get the result from the ITAC that would make it worth it.

Whoever on the ITAC it is who thinks that's a fair and reasonable plan is somebody who cares nothing about classing the car correctly, or has other motives. Really, when you think about it what's the harm in classing it correctly? The RX8 was handled properly, and last I checked, nobody's ripping it up and dominating in THAT car. Nor is there a land rush to build them!

The 10% represents what, about 10hp? Thats 170 ITB pounds. A pretty significant amount.

And even if the car were to dominate at 15%, ...you have the mechanism to fix it.

So I really don't get it. Makes NO sense why the ITAC is being so stubborn about this. And those who voted against won't stand up and explain themselves.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think the good news is that we are now arguing/discussing things about how the Process shoudl be applied to a particular car, rather than arguing whether it is a good idea or not at all. That to me is significant progress.

Or that those that think that you stick to 25% in an overly-blind fashion have just stopped because we are tired of banging our heads against a wall. Couple that with the 30% issue in ITB and it makes my blood boil. You need a act of God to move from 25% yet the other issue sticks. Ugh.

Fine

The MR2 represents, to me, the worst of both issues. Tag that motor at 15% and kill a couple birds.

[JeffYoung]

Going to have to agree to disagree here. Requiring dyno sheets, doing research, etc. and being cautious in assessing them I think is the complete opposite of overly blind. And I personally think basing classing decisions on one or two verbal opinions from builders was far more dangerous.

I agree with you on the 30% rule.

But I think tagging the MR2 motor at 15% based on what we know now highlights a big problem with the Process. I still think it is entirely possible that motor can make 20% based on the build specs I've seen, and yet all I've got for "what we know" is a bunch of dyno plots, only one of which is a pretty good IT build, showing 15%. I can't see how that is conclusive in anyway.


Or that those that think that you stick to 25% in an overly-blind fashion have just stopped because we are tired of banging our heads against a wall. Couple that with the 30% issue in ITB and it makes my blood boil. You need a act of God to move from 25% yet the other issue sticks. Ugh.

Fine

The MR2 represents, to me, the worst of both issues. Tag that motor at 15% and kill a couple birds.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Going to have to agree to disagree here. Requiring dyno sheets, doing research, etc. and being cautious in assessing them I think is the complete opposite of overly blind. And I personally think basing classing decisions on one or two verbal opinions from builders was far more dangerous.

I agree with you on the 30% rule.

But I think tagging the MR2 motor at 15% based on what we know now highlights a big problem with the Process. I still think it is entirely possible that motor can make 20% based on the build specs I've seen, and yet all I've got for "what we know" is a bunch of dyno plots, only one of which is a pretty good IT build, showing 15%. I can't see how that is conclusive in anyway.

I would love to see those 15% sheets. If they do exist (not questioning your integrity, just your memory LOL), then I can buy the 20% number. I don't remember seeing anything over 10-12%, but new stuff may be in-house.

[jjjanos]

Who votes what way and on what should be a matter of public record, otherwise the spectre of logrolling and backroom deals haunts the decisions of each and every committee. Once I know how and why one person voted for something, I know the opinions of those who voted the other way... i.e. the other way.

[JeffYoung]

You are always wise to question my memory, it's not as good as it should be....

I think the best we saw on an IT like build was 14%, which would be rounded up to 15%. I'll see if they are posted to the ITAC website.

At some point though, you have to wonder what the hell is going on with this motor. 10% gain on a mid 80s 4-valve motor? That would be a HUGE outlier for pretty much any other motor of that era.

I really do think -- and this is not "evidence" but it was part of my decision making process -- that because this car got stuck in ITA for so long, the motor really has not been developed to the max in IT trim, at least not like "modern" IT motors. I certainly don't have to preach to you about how much things have changed just in the last 10 years or so as fars as finding gains in the IT ruleset......


I would love to see those 15% sheets. If they do exist (not questioning your integrity, just your memory LOL), then I can buy the 20% number. I don't remember seeing anything over 10-12%, but new stuff may be in-house.

[Andy Bettencourt]

At some point though, you have to wonder what the hell is going on with this motor. 10% gain on a mid 80s 4-valve motor? That would be a HUGE outlier for pretty much any other motor of that era.



Actually you don't have to wonder. Honda's are the exception, not the rule. When you look at the port size of some of these motors, you will quickly understand.

Add to that the fact that just because it has a DOHC set-up doesn't mean the intake is worth a crap, or it has an oversized AFM, or anything that can be taken advantage of when you put a header and open air filter on. Know any Toyota's that have EVER outperformed their initial process number or that needed to be adjusted because they were an overdog?

Me either.

One of my Honda buddies saw a Miata head on the bench and laughed out loud.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Who votes what way and on what should be a matter of public record, otherwise the spectre of logrolling and backroom deals haunts the decisions of each and every committee. Once I know how and why one person voted for something, I know the opinions of those who voted the other way... i.e. the other way.

I would love to have the votes published too. Not an ITAC issue however. Write in to the CRB.

[gran racing]

Jeff, no one is saying that a pod cast of the ITAC be produced and released on the web. Yes, members should feel like they can debate on various issues without a backlash from members. At the same time, why shouldn't members know what's going on.

A part of me thinks that the ACs should publish minutes or at least a summary of what was discussed in the various calls. I admit to wondering what has been going on since use of the process on existing cars was approved. Or what is currently being discussed.

Travis, for what it's worth you sure do come off as not caring on this tread. I hope it's just a matter of some frustration showing though as I do genuinely think you care.

[quadzjr]

Wow alot has been said in one day.. ohh the times when I was able to get on here during the day.

the highest number I have seen is from teh 10/10ths IT build built by xxxx. It had a tuneable ECU (MS I believe), and did some "grey area" cam timing. he got 108 to the wheels.

so 108/(112*.85) = 113.4%

That motor cost rumored in excess of 5k as a delivered tuned package. some believe it was in excess of 7k.

In either case. I did a BUNCH of research and submitted an engineering paper on the differences of 4AGE and why they do not respond to IT mods to the ITAC. I understand why it may come off as biased.. so that is why I tried to remain as straight and honest as possible. I have also had a long standing invitation to anyone to prove me wrong. If I didn't have 100% confidence that I am telling the truth that would be a very scary proposition to make openly on the internet.

If you want even more dry reading there is SAE papers on the matter as well.

So even when I finish my motor I am going to have to weight for someone else? I am planning/hoping to beat the 108hp mark. My goal is 110.. but we will see.

as for the questions 3 pages ago.. my header was built on the dyno utilizing varying lenght slip on extensions. Once the best result was achieved the pipes were welded together. This header matches within an 1" or so of the math as well as what Burns predicted. This is the same method that Blake did with the 914 he built. As for computer my computer is a chipped tuned factory computer. It has a significantly more aggressive timing curve, non-existent redline, and now goes open loop and keeps a very nice AFR from 4500+ rpm. Is it a motec or typicall programble ECU.. no not yet. however other people that race ITB MR2s that have tuned programable ECU and I made more power with my setup.

Like has been mentioned.. If it is proven wrong.. then there is a possiblity to fix it. Currently they are running times roughly around or for the higher prepped cars/drivers just in front of the leaders of ITC. Far from worrying about ever being an overdog.

Since I don't see anybody else is attempting 10/10ths motor I am doomed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Great stuff Steve. Not your average 'my motor made xxx' letter.

[JeffYoung]

Steve, I read your paper and you know I agree with the premise which it was submitted to support -- that the 4AGE is different from the Atlantic motors.

I also respect your build efforts. Very impressive. At the same time, I certainly have learned that every time I think I've run out of ideas for more power....something else pops up on the radar. What kind of intake testing have you done? Do you have a Burns merge collector? And so on.

Check my numbers, but it seems to me that if you get 114 whp that's 19.6 percent, or effectively 20% gain. That's just six more hp than the 108 build you've seen. Getting close to dyno noise really.

20% is not out of the question. And 25% may not be, although I would not have and did not vote for that percentage.

[JeffYoung]

We were doing this for a while (publishing minutes). We should restart it. I will raise that next meeting.


Jeff, no one is saying that a pod cast of the ITAC be produced and released on the web. Yes, members should feel like they can debate on various issues without a backlash from members. At the same time, why shouldn't members know what's going on.

A part of me thinks that the ACs should publish minutes or at least a summary of what was discussed in the various calls. I admit to wondering what has been going on since use of the process on existing cars was approved. Or what is currently being discussed.

Travis, for what it's worth you sure do come off as not caring on this tread. I hope it's just a matter of some frustration showing though as I do genuinely think you care.

[quadzjr]

Steve, I read your paper and you know I agree with the premise which it was submitted to support -- that the 4AGE is different from the Atlantic motors.

I also respect your build efforts. Very impressive. At the same time, I certainly have learned that every time I think I've run out of ideas for more power....something else pops up on the radar. What kind of intake testing have you done? Do you have a Burns merge collector? And so on.

Check my numbers, but it seems to me that if you get 114 whp that's 19.6 percent, or effectively 20% gain. That's just six more hp than the 108 build you've seen. Getting close to dyno noise really.

20% is not out of the question. And 25% may not be, although I would not have and did not vote for that percentage.

The premise of the paper was just informational.. it does prove the astronomical differences between an FA motor and the one found inteh MR@.. it also goes into some detail about port flows, and intake velocity (limiting factor in IT trim)

I agree 6 hp would be absolutely. I ask you to remember that 6 hp is a harder number to get when you base is 100hp compared something with say 200hp.. 6 hp to the wheels is in fact it is exactly twice as hard mathmatcially :)

the car with 108 had a custom timing gear with his own built in advance for the cams. I am not doing that. I got 106 with my setup..

though these fighting for 1 or 2 hp in my opinion is also within noise from one dyno to another.. I use the same dyno everytime for consistency and repeatabliy.. however this noise is possibly causing my car to be 95 or 190lbs over weight. As 5hp would result in roughly 5% engine gain or 95LBS in ITB weight.

The reason why a real 6 hp and not dyno noise is hard to acheive is detailed in the paper.. the intake ports are huge and have an very large angle. The port is larger than the size you see on an SBC of SBF feeding a much smaller clyinder with cams that have very little duration and lift.

Yes, intake tuning has been done, and dyno proven the smaller (length wise) you can make it the better it gets.. but this is all still relative.. we are still talking a hp or so. It doesn't have to be a burns stainless collector any collector that merges in the same manner (smooth transision between tubes, no sharp changes in volume (causign pressure drops and sonic reverb)). The one advantage is that burns is already assembled and you do not have to fabricate it. I looked into this ALOT about 3 years ago and collects over a dozen cards from people at the PRI expo in orlando. I do plan on reduming my header.. I want to try a stepped design as well as playing witha long tube 4-2-1. Just to try to regain some torque.. Depending on model I am down 10 to 20ft/lbs to my competitiors.

I assume that all these little things is the reason why my motor makes on average 3-4hp more than the average IT 4AGE build. Sad thing is that my motor cost significnatly more than theirs and only got 4 hp on them. I feel kinda foolish because of that.

BTW Jeff I really appreciate your time in discussing in the matter and infact it does not bother me to much on what side of things you sit. Everybody has their opinion and that is how and why committes work. but you also listen and discuss and ask questions. I am an engineer that can't let any question sit unanswered. I am just trying to possibly bring a new light (if there is one to be had) to you or anybody that will listen. With the current classification I am charged with the task (self inflicted) to do what is out of the current relm of the physical world we live in AND within the IT rule set :)

IT is my world. I really like the class and enjoy the racing and the friends. Something that I didn't see as much when we went national level prod racing.

[JeffYoung]

Steve, no worries. You've always been great to discuss things with.

I vacillitate between 15 and 20 on this one. I hate to admit it but the "architecture" thinking I am opposed to in almost all cases creeps in a bit here. The motor is a godo design on paper and SHOULD make more..but it doesn't. Somethign of a mystery.

In any event, more tomorrow, and tahnks for all of the effort you have put in. It was and remains very helpful.


The premise of the paper was just informational.. it does prove the astronomical differences between an FA motor and the one found inteh MR@.. it also goes into some detail about port flows, and intake velocity (limiting factor in IT trim)

I agree 6 hp would be absolutely. I ask you to remember that 6 hp is a harder number to get when you base is 100hp compared something with say 200hp.. 6 hp to the wheels is in fact it is exactly twice as hard mathmatcially :)

the car with 108 had a custom timing gear with his own built in advance for the cams. I am not doing that. I got 106 with my setup..

though these fighting for 1 or 2 hp in my opinion is also within noise from one dyno to another.. I use the same dyno everytime for consistency and repeatabliy.. however this noise is possibly causing my car to be 95 or 190lbs over weight. As 5hp would result in roughly 5% engine gain or 95LBS in ITB weight.

The reason why a real 6 hp and not dyno noise is hard to acheive is detailed in the paper.. the intake ports are huge and have an very large angle. The port is larger than the size you see on an SBC of SBF feeding a much smaller clyinder with cams that have very little duration and lift.

Yes, intake tuning has been done, and dyno proven the smaller (length wise) you can make it the better it gets.. but this is all still relative.. we are still talking a hp or so. It doesn't have to be a burns stainless collector any collector that merges in the same manner (smooth transision between tubes, no sharp changes in volume (causign pressure drops and sonic reverb)). The one advantage is that burns is already assembled and you do not have to fabricate it. I looked into this ALOT about 3 years ago and collects over a dozen cards from people at the PRI expo in orlando. I do plan on reduming my header.. I want to try a stepped design as well as playing witha long tube 4-2-1. Just to try to regain some torque.. Depending on model I am down 10 to 20ft/lbs to my competitiors.

I assume that all these little things is the reason why my motor makes on average 3-4hp more than the average IT 4AGE build. Sad thing is that my motor cost significnatly more than theirs and only got 4 hp on them. I feel kinda foolish because of that.

BTW Jeff I really appreciate your time in discussing in the matter and infact it does not bother me to much on what side of things you sit. Everybody has their opinion and that is how and why committes work. but you also listen and discuss and ask questions. I am an engineer that can't let any question sit unanswered. I am just trying to possibly bring a new light (if there is one to be had) to you or anybody that will listen. With the current classification I am charged with the task (self inflicted) to do what is out of the current relm of the physical world we live in AND within the IT rule set :)

IT is my world. I really like the class and enjoy the racing and the friends. Something that I didn't see as much when we went national level prod racing.

[quadzjr]

I guess it depends on what papers you are looking at when you say "on paper". haha.

if you were looking papers at port shapes, flows, angles, valve angles, came duration and lift, and factory overlap, and intake manifold design (each port is fed by two very small and long runners). you can also look into the weight of the entire rotating assembly. It is significatly heavier than any VW or honda that I have seen in teh 1.6 to 1.8L range. Another thing is the transmission .. the internals are extremely robust. has the same aluminum case as any many other FWD cars, except the 4AGE trans weighs 85lbs!

The "honda" guys at the shop have made it a sport of comparing how heavy the overbuilt toyota part is compared to the compareable honda part. The toyota design may last for 250k miles with oil changes but doesn't help me for track purposes.

Yeah I guess we will see what is going to be written tomorrow.:024:

night.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Check my numbers, but it seems to me that if you get 114 whp that's 19.6 percent, or effectively 20% gain. That's just six more hp than the 108 build you've seen. Getting close to dyno noise really.

20% is not out of the question. And 25% may not be, although I would not have and did not vote for that percentage.

It's also almost another 6-7%.

Be careful not to extrapolate TOO much your experiences with a 3.8L V8 to a twin cam 1.6L with small port heads and an ass-backward packaging setup.

110whp on one of these (also with only about 15% losses, Corolla another 5% down) seems like a legitimate stretch goal. That would put it at 2250 in ITB.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Steve, no worries. You've always been great to discuss things with.

I vacillitate between 15 and 20 on this one. I hate to admit it but the "architecture" thinking I am opposed to in almost all cases creeps in a bit here. The motor is a godo design on paper and SHOULD make more..but it doesn't. Somethign of a mystery.



So I have to wonder what you mean when you say this Jeff. Simply 16V and DOHC? No accounts for intake design? Port size etc? AFM size? Throttle body size? Should the Type R make 25% because it has the same 'design'? S2000? Do all rotories make the same increases? V8's? Hell no.

The mystery of why this car and most Toyotas under-respond is there for you I think.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I think it's dangerous to be so 25% centric, and require what is easy to see as near impossible levels of proof to budge from that level. (And I address that as "Jeff" because you're really the only one engaging in any legitimate dialog from the ITAC)

You've gotten more data, more real solid info on this motor than ANY I can remember in the past. (The RX-8 got two numbers from two builders as I recall that were within 1%, ) and if that's not enough to budge from the 25%, then basically, you (the ITAC) have created a defacto standard, and our jobs as competitors is merely to find the car that exceeds the 25%. Win.

And that's too bad because that creates a "car of the year" class, which is EXACTLY what the Process was created to avoid.

Version ONE of the Process stated, as step 3 (IIRC) to "Check and make sure the numbers make sense. IF known numbers are available, use those", or something to that effect.
The problem of that is, of course, subjectivity. That's why V2 had policy implementations to determine what level of proof was needed. It appears that level has become impossibly high, and that's a shame.

If this is the new paradigm, then is it safe to assume that you'll be revisiting some classifications done that are off the 25% base? Like the ITA CRX? I bet the ITAC has NO dyno sheets for those cars. And that's just a start.

yea, I doubt anybody wants to go there, because it's obviously working so well. But hey, you can't have a policy that is implemented now and then, but wasn't back then. Can't have it both ways.

Here with the MR2 you've gotten more data than nearly any I can recall, and while they aren't all the same build, the numbers jive and make sense. You have cammed motors falling well short of the factor the ITAC has insisted on.

Honestly, it saddening to see such an illogical classification, especially when doing the right thing has no risk! If you make a mistake, you have the capacity to fix it. Andy's right, name ONE Toyota that even comes close to meeting it's factor. This one won't be the one to break the trend, clearly.

[JeffYoung]

Jake we moved the MR2 off of default. The default (which I disagree with) in ITB for a multivalve is 30%. We agreed to go lower. I just could not convince the committee to go any lower than 25%, and given the dyno data I've seen I still do think 20% is within the realm of reason and 25% while very unlikely at least very remotely possible.

Steve's posts on his engine build show a lot of understand of the weaknesses of the engine but even his dyno data confirms for me that I think my vote was right. The motor probably can make 15% and there is a so-so chance an extremely good build could make 20%.

But I don't agree with the idea we have reams of data for this car. We do not have a lot of IT builds. It's not like what I undersand you guys had for the E36. Hell, I've seen way more top flight L24 and L26 dyno plots than this. I guess I'm lucky S has been so easy -- you guys did a good job with it -- in that all the top cars are pretty known quantities.

Andy, I agree with you that if you are going to use architecture in any meaningful way, you have to look beyond just displacement and number of valves. You make a good point there.

But where I do disagree with you and Jake is on evidentiary standard. I do feel strongly the safest thing to do in almost all cases is go with the 25% default. Deviations should be rare, and should be based on far more than a single data point, from analogies to the same motor in other levels of prep, or from (in my opinion the worst source of data) guesses by an engine builder.

To me, this is the best safeguard against allwoing the last bit of subjectivity in the Process become a tool for gamesmanship. VERY FEW cars should move off of 25%. Mine. The Z cars. Rotaries. The E36. The CRX. Unless and until there is a very good body of data on IT builds to do so.

But when we don't have that -- IT build data -- we should be very hesistant to do anything but default.

[Chip42]

But where I do disagree with you and Jake is on evidentiary standard. I do feel strongly the safest thing to do in almost all cases is go with the 25% default. Deviations should be rare, and should be based on far more than a single data point, from analogies to the same motor in other levels of prep, or from (in my opinion the worst source of data) guesses by an engine builder.

To me, this is the best safeguard against allwoing the last bit of subjectivity in the Process become a tool for gamesmanship. VERY FEW cars should move off of 25%. Mine. The Z cars. Rotaries. The E36. The CRX. Unless and until there is a very good body of data on IT builds to do so.

But when we don't have that -- IT build data -- we should be very hesistant to do anything but default.

I agree with hesitation regarding moving from default, and the desire to have comprehensive data confirming the decision to do so. I also agree that an IT build is a different animal, and that the common belief among engine builders and the like that "stock" motors won't build power is rooted in a day before the levels of tuning sofistication we now have, and the fact that it's easier to drop in some cams than to do that tuning in the first place.

But I don't think it "should" be a rare occasion that a car falls outside of the standard IT gain. Rather,I think it's a happy coincidence that such a nice, even number (125%) happens to work so well for so many popular cars. There's certainly no DOT rule stating that engines should be choked back by 20% of their capability, and designers aren't in a rush to make more "potentially" powerful motors. I'm betting that there are more cars on the list that, when built to 10/10ths, will fall more than 5% off of the default 125%, but they aren't popular enough to garner the attention or the data.

The 4AGE was "optimized" by toyota to make best use of the major hard parts, and it seems they did a good job, because no one has been able to eek much power out of the things, even using the old tricks like compression and cam. toyota redesigned the ports around 1990 in order to make it work better, because they couldn't keep up with Honda, etc with just an updated ECU and exhaust, they had to do more fundamental redesign. a couple of years later, Yamaha gave them the 20V head with MUCH improved port profiles and all of a sudden they have a B16 fighter. I'm not saying that a full tilt IT build couldn't gain some hp, nor am I rejecting the performance benefits of increased area under the curve. what I am saying is that until there's a number that feels even remotely plausable (maybe 120%) there will not be many people dumping the money and effort into a build that they "know" will not have a proportional payoff. and if someone does manage to get to 120%, or even find that extra 1 or 2% then who cares? it would round down anyhow, and really, are there NO cars in the ITCS that are making a tick above their process power number??? if it gets too powerful, put weight back on it. guess what, though: you won't have to.
I know I'm going all out on everything BUT the motor on my car. I'll get to it eventually, maybe. but watching Steve go through the paces has been frustrating.

the ITB/C 130% number is complete BS. any deviation from the 125% norm should be done on a case by case basis with documented evidence of the IT power potential. just because the sticker on the car says "ITB" doesn't make the air anf fuel burn differently than if it were in A.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But where I do disagree with you and Jake is on evidentiary standard. I do feel strongly the safest thing to do in almost all cases is go with the 25% default. Deviations should be rare, and should be based on far more than a single data point, from analogies to the same motor in other levels of prep, or from (in my opinion the worst source of data) guesses by an engine builder.

To me, this is the best safeguard against allwoing the last bit of subjectivity in the Process become a tool for gamesmanship. VERY FEW cars should move off of 25%. Mine. The Z cars. Rotaries. The E36. The CRX. Unless and until there is a very good body of data on IT builds to do so.

But when we don't have that -- IT build data -- we should be very hesistant to do anything but default.

And we do disagree. I believe you use the 25% as a starting point, see what information is out there and make an EDUCATED guess. Sticking with 25% is simply stubborn in my mind because it is no way 'more correct' than any %.

My issue with the description you write is that you put the safegaurds and internal gamesmanship ABOVE 'your best effort'.

The safegaurds were in place when I left, the gamesmanship was gone - or ther was a mechanism to squash it...all while providing a path for 'better guesses'.

This MR2 issue proves only one thing to me, that the committee would rather 'look' like they aren't fiddling with the numbers than actually putting the car at a number they are pretty sure is accurate...and the majority of the IT community has been sure of for years. Single point of data or not, weigh it's value. You have a tremendous resource that is getting counted as equally as 'It's an Atlantic motor'.

It seems like the committee is more formula than Process these days, and I think that hurts the classifications and will lead to MORE overdogs because you aren't willing to go with solid info, regardless of quantity.

(On edit: I know you are walking the fine line between your opinions and the committees opinions so please don't take any of this personally, I speak mostly of the current committee-wide attitudes - or my perception of it based on your reamarks. As ALWAYS, thanks for being one of the VERY few who is willing to keep the info flowing)

[Andy Bettencourt]

But I don't think it "should" be a rare occasion that a car falls outside of the standard IT gain. Rather,I think it's a happy coincidence that such a nice, even number (125%) happens to work so well for so many popular cars. ....<>...... I'm betting that there are more cars on the list that, when built to 10/10ths, will fall more than 5% off of the default 125%, but they aren't popular enough to garner the attention or the data.



Quoted for truth.

[JeffYoung]

We do make adjustments based on data. We did on the MR2. It's just that you disagree with the amount of the adjustment.

But in the absence of actual data about IT level builds, I can assure you I am not going to rely on calls to a couple of engine builders to make a 'guess" about what a motor will do in IT trim.

No one is saying that we are stuck on 25%. But I am saying the evidentiary standard to move off it is higher than it was, and it should be in my view. We relied too heavily on potentially suspect dyno data, and "guesses" from engine builders in the past.

And I would say the gamesmanship was not gone when you were there. This has nothing to do with you personally, but we weren't able to do anything with the MR2 until you guys left. Now, you paved the way for it as part of getting the CRB to accept the Process, but in my view part of the trade off in doing so was the committee being asked to be more critical about dyno numbers, quotes, etc. And I think that is appropriate after doing a lot of reading about dynos and "what we know." While I think that is a valid concept, in a lot of cases we DON'T actually know what we think we know.


And we do disagree. I believe you use the 25% as a starting point, see what information is out there and make an EDUCATED guess. Sticking with 25% is simply stubborn in my mind because it is no way 'more correct' than any %.

My issue with the description you write is that you put the safegaurds and internal gamesmanship ABOVE 'your best effort'.

The safegaurds were in place when I left, the gamesmanship was gone - or ther was a mechanism to squash it...all while providing a path for 'better guesses'.

This MR2 issue proves only one thing to me, that the committee would rather 'look' like they aren't fiddling with the numbers than actually putting the car at a number they are pretty sure is accurate...and the majority of the IT community has been sure of for years. Single point of data or not, weigh it's value. You have a tremendous resource that is getting counted as equally as 'It's an Atlantic motor'.

It seems like the committee is more formula than Process these days, and I think that hurts the classifications and will lead to MORE overdogs because you aren't willing to go with solid info, regardless of quantity.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We do make adjustments based on data. We did on the MR2. It's just that you disagree with the amount of the adjustment.

Not buying that. You didn't change to the number the data pointed too, you just made it 'less worse' while still making huge assumptions. I assert you were way too conservative, for what I have no idea, but we will agree to disagree.


But in the absence of actual data about IT level builds, I can assure you I am not going to rely on calls to a couple of engine builders to make a 'guess" about what a motor will do in IT trim.
Fair enough, but not applicable to the MR2 situation.


No one is saying that we are stuck on 25%. But I am saying the evidentiary standard to move off it is higher than it was, and it should be in my view. We relied too heavily on potentially suspect dyno data, and "guesses" from engine builders in the past.

Well you actually are saying you are stuck on 25% unless you hit the new evidentiary standard. No issues there, except that I feel it's too high to remain nimble and accurate.


And I would say the gamesmanship was not gone when you were there. This has nothing to do with you personally, but we weren't able to do anything with the MR2 until you guys left. Now, you paved the way for it as part of getting the CRB to accept the Process, but in my view part of the trade off in doing so was the committee being asked to be more critical about dyno numbers, quotes, etc. And I think that is appropriate after doing a lot of reading about dynos and "what we know." While I think that is a valid concept, in a lot of cases we DON'T actually know what we think we know.

Hell, when I was there, some CRB members wanted to class based on architecture. Geez. The only cars that got gamed were ones that ran through when I missed a call. I would have jumped through the phone on the MR2 should I have been on. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed on the RX-8.

[Charlie Broring]

It seems like the committee is more formula than Process these days, and I think that hurts the classifications and will lead to MORE overdogs because you aren't willing to go with solid info, regardless of quantity.

This was my observation during my very short time on the committee. I can't help but think that the rather heated debate between Jeff and myself about ITB and the Process may have pushed the Committee further in this direction.

[JeffYoung]

This remains an odd (to me) misconception.

No one is saying we are stuck on 25%. We aren't. All we are saying is that hard, supportable data is required to move off of it.

Talking to another guy in the paddock is not enough.

A call to an engine buidler is not a enough.

One or two dyno sheets of an "IT like" build are not enough.

Moreover, I'd say the issues that led to Charlie leaving the committee actually had more to do with using the Process to game the system than being stuck on a "formula." There was a push by some folks from the DCR Region running ITB to, in my view, "add weight to new cars in ITB and take weight from old ones" without any basis in the Process and instead based on perceived competitiveness against World Challenge quality driver/prep levels at Summit Point.


This was my observation during my very short time on the committee. I can't help but think that the rather heated debate between Jeff and myself about ITB and the Process may have pushed the Committee further in this direction.

[Charlie Broring]

Actually a pretty fair fact based argument to reevaluate the process power to weight multipliers figure for ITB and C cars was presented. I observed that most ITB, and all ITC cars will need weight reductions in order to comply with the process. The only cars that seemed "right" were the ITA cars that got bumped down to ITB a few years ago. However, that's past history and it may now be best to continue down the road were on.

I do take issue with your contention that I was pursuing a DC Region agenda. That's just silly. It also shows a lack of insight by one of the people making the the club rules.

[jjjanos]

Actually a pretty fair fact based argument to reevaluate the process power to weight multipliers figure for ITB and C cars was presented. I observed that most ITB, and all ITC cars will need weight reductions in order to comply with the process.

Based on the 8-10 calculations I've done on various cars, this seems to be the case. Mind you, there are more than 10 cars in ITB.

[JeffYoung]

No one disagrees that some ITB cars have not been through the Process.

The question was how to do it, and the answer is not "add weight to the new cars, and subtract from the old."

[Knestis]

Actually a pretty fair fact based argument to reevaluate the process power to weight multipliers figure for ITB and C cars was presented. I observed that most ITB, and all ITC cars will need weight reductions in order to comply with the process. ...

The current ITB multiplier was established - qualitatively - to level cars adjusted during the Great Realignment, aligning them to cars viewed as "competitive" through observed on-track performance during the immediately preceding seasons.

Many front-running cars - including some key Volvos - were running at the time under a cheating detente. They were fast but not legal (e.g., my often-cited example of the VIR lap record holder).

Cars added using the then-new process (and its multiplier) ended up somewhere near the performance envelope established by those cheated up MkI GTIs, 2002s, 142s, et al. - which would have been fine, if not for the fact that the culture of IT started clamping down on cheats at about the same time...

EDIT - and yes, a couple of really good drivers built top-notch efforts around newly listed cars (Underwood and Herbert). Whether you are advancing a "DC Region agenda" or not, Charlie, you have to be honest that your perspective on the competitive state-of-the-art is influenced by what you see at MARRS events.

The net result is that some of those then-competitive cars now appear to be adrift - and probably are to some degree - based (again) on on-track performance.

The problem is exacerbated in B because it's got a HUGE range of ages, technology, layouts, standards for stock HP, and other factors that make it a nightmare model-to-model. And the situation is further messed up because even if they were adjusted, some models - notably the 142 - can't get light enough to make their new target weight appropriate for a "what-we-know" power figure.

So as I understand it, the suggestion here was to change the B class multiplier to provide more latitude. Problematic, perhaps, because it would force weight changes on cars that have been set in recent years using what should be the established Process. It's also not clear what "most ITB cars" means, where losing weight is concerned and further, how many cars would NOT be able to make said weight (a la said 142). My (not current) sense is that we would be upsetting the established apple cart for a handful of cars, that frankly should be in C under the current paradigm.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I'm on record as supporting the idea of a complete do-over of ITB, simply because it IS a great mess, which would allow for a fix in the form of a new multiplier. But that would be a huge undertaking...

I can see both the wisdom of lean-on-the standard conservative approach AND the value of a the V.2 Process that allowed for documented, hard-to-diddle committee judgment about multipliers. Both are sensible and defensible. What is NEITHER - and is in fact truly asinine - is the 30% "architecture" bump. Plain and simple, that's a holdover bias left over from days that should be long past.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

This remains an odd (to me) misconception.

No one is saying we are stuck on 25%. We aren't. All we are saying is that hard, supportable data is required to move off of it.



And at some point Jeff, your data standard could get so hard to satisfy that you are by defacto, 'stuck' on 25%.

I truly feel that enough is known about the MR2 motor by the committee that a 15% multipler is easily supportable. The ITAC currently doesn't. Nobody can provide sheets or ANY info saying that 20% is doable...ugh.

No problem, but to me, you are 'stuck'.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, saying that the committee "moved off the standard" on the MR2, is, (I bet to YOU too), BS, because the 30% thing is a joke and a half. I understand, AND REALLY REALLY APPRECIATE, that you here discussing, and are walking the line on representing the committees views fairly, while remaining reasonable. But, I think the committee has NO legitimate reason to cling to the silly 30% "Deal" that was made to "allow 4v engines into ITB".

Charlie, I'd like to understand more of your proposal on ITB.
(I only hope it doesn't rely on "This guy is faster than these guys at this track")

I agree with Andy 200% that if the data (over years of getting dynos sheets and information) on the MR2 is insufficient to budge off the 25% standard, then it aint gonna happen to any car, but the rare exception (like the RX-8*) ...the world of IT will be a 25% place.

Seriously....the committee needs to swallow hard, admit the 30% thing is just stupid and makes them look silly, and accept the data and list the car at 15%. Or, barring that, 20% at the WORST...but seriously, would YOU spend the cubic dollars building that motor on the bet that it can make 20%??? I know, MAYBE it can be done. Well, MAYbe we'll land a man on the moon in 5 years, MAybe the middle east will figure their shit out and go to Disney World hand in hand....but we all know those are dumb bets.

*Question....if the RX-8 were to be classed today, what would the ITAC class it at? 15%? 20% 25%? What data would be acceptable to move off the standard?

[JoshS]

You guys drive me batty sometimes. You were on the committee when we implemented the idea of the confidence factor to vary from the standard. The idea was that each member was to express how confident they were that the alternate horsepower was really what could be expected in IT trim.

Based on the evidence, when we did the MR2, there wasn't a high enough confidence to get lower than 115 (or something, I can't remember the specifics anymore) whp. That is to say, the committee didn't reach "confident" that this is the IT whp potential until we got that high.

This is the process that you loved. It's the one that I managed to get written down and added to the CRB ops manual as an appendix. It's based on the committee member's gut feelings based on evidence presented. Sorry if the confidence just wasn't that high. I'll tell you that I personally didn't have enough confidence in these numbers as low as 110. I felt like only one person has tried under these rules, and with plenty of other cars, we know that the first one that tried wasn't the one that "figured it out."

And like it or not, the "norm" is 30% right now. Without compelling evidence, it would still be up over 2500 lbs.

Can you please go barking up another tree? Maybe a fresh one so we can stop hashing over the same things?

[jjjanos]

No one disagrees that some ITB cars have not been through the Process.

The question was how to do it, and the answer is not "add weight to the new cars, and subtract from the old."

And yet, that's what the fancy math formula with the arrows and squiggles does.




So as I understand it, the suggestion here was to change the B class multiplier to provide more latitude. Problematic, perhaps, because it would force weight changes on cars that have been set in recent years using what should be the established Process.

A Process which you've acknowledged is faulty for B because the class multiplier was set to equate new cars to the illegal performance envelope of existing cars.

IMO, with the exception of the MR2s that got moved down to B and certain newer cars that were classed using the flawed multiplier, there has been a good competitive mix in B.

Clearly classifying the new cars too light couldn't continue... but now the question is whether the ITB Process is suppose to serve ITB or whether ITB is suppose to serve the ITB Process.

I can get the weight out of my car, so I'm happy I lost over 100lbs of lead this year. That puts me at an advantage over the rest of the old guard... what about them?

How many "new" cars were built using the incorrect multiplier? How many existing cars will need to adjust their weights or be forced down to a new class because of an arbitrary decision that the ITB multiplier SHALL BE 17?

[JeffYoung]

And nobody has proved that it's not.

I remember thinking 165 whp was the most I could ever get out of my motor, and had dyno sheets to prove it.

I remember thinking 170 whp was the most I could ever get out of my motor, and had the dyno sheets to prove it.

And so on.

Because this car was stuck in ITA was not competitive there, my personal opinion is (and no offense to Steve) that there has never been a truly full tilt, multi-year development effort on this motor like there was for the E36, or the L24 Datsun motors, or the Miata motor, or the 12A and 13B.

Given that, and given just another 6-8 hp gets this motor to 20%, I was ok with that figure as a conservative power gain number. The remaining members of the committe thought it should be higher (I think, one or two may have voted with me). I respect that.

Why? Because we went through the very same data analyzing/confidence assessing process that this same group -- Kirk, Andy, Jake, Josh, and to a much lesser extent me -- came up with.

There was no gamesmanship and there was no BS. It was a straight assessment.

You two guys disagree with that assessment. That's fine. But I don't know what else to tell you. Other than the fact we had to start with the 30% default, which I disagree with personally, I think this car was treated fairly by the committee. I disagree with the result, but the Process itself worked.

You can't turn on the Process, or the committe, when the one subjective part of it is used to produce a result you just don't agree with.



And at some point Jeff, your data standard could get so hard to satisfy that you are by defacto, 'stuck' on 25%.

I truly feel that enough is known about the MR2 motor by the committee that a 15% multipler is easily supportable. The ITAC currently doesn't. Nobody can provide sheets or ANY info saying that 20% is doable...ugh.

No problem, but to me, you are 'stuck'.

[JeffYoung]

No, actually it doesn't. It leaves the new cars in B at their existing process weight, and drops some of the older ones down to their Process weight.




And yet, that's what the fancy math formula with the arrows and squiggles does.



A Process which you've acknowledged is faulty for B because the class multiplier was set to equate new cars to the illegal performance envelope of existing cars.

IMO, with the exception of the MR2s that got moved down to B and certain newer cars that were classed using the flawed multiplier, there has been a good competitive mix in B.

Clearly classifying the new cars too light couldn't continue... but now the question is whether the ITB Process is suppose to serve ITB or whether ITB is suppose to serve the ITB Process.

I can get the weight out of my car, so I'm happy I lost over 100lbs of lead this year. That puts me at an advantage over the rest of the old guard... what about them?

How many "new" cars were built using the incorrect multiplier? How many existing cars will need to adjust their weights or be forced down to a new class because of an arbitrary decision that the ITB multiplier SHALL BE 17?

[lateapex911]

You guys drive me batty sometimes.
Well, life at the top can be exasperating, even for a retired chairman. ;)

You were on the committee when we implemented the idea of the confidence factor to vary from the standard. The idea was that each member was to express how confident they were that the alternate horsepower was really what could be expected in IT trim.

Based on the evidence, when we did the MR2, there wasn't a high enough confidence to get lower than 115 (or something, I can't remember the specifics anymore) whp. That is to say, the committee didn't reach "confident" that this is the IT whp potential until we got that high.

This is the process that you loved. It's the one that I managed to get written down and added to the CRB ops manual as an appendix. It's based on the committee member's gut feelings based on evidence presented. Sorry if the confidence just wasn't that high. I'll tell you that I personally didn't have enough confidence in these numbers as low as 110.

I hear you Josh, and not once have I said boo about the Process failings.
I've harped ( ;) ) on the issue that the majority of the committee has dug their heels in and expressed disdain regarding the evidence. Yes, that's their right. BUT, Jeff has gone on to say that the committee, as a whole, has been proactively taking the stance that they will not move off the standard...(and that suggests that IF they move they won't move far...) unless much higher evidentiary standards are met. So yes, you are correct that the Process and the protocols have been followed, it's also true that the bar has been raised.

That's where I have issues. I just don't think that's wise, and certainly in this case, I find it incredible that the committee stood firm on a number 10% higher than anything they've seen.


I felt like only one person has tried under these rules, and with plenty of other cars, we know that the first one that tried wasn't the one that "figured it out."

Can you please go barking up another tree? Maybe a fresh one so we can stop hashing over the same things?

Yea, but it's not the first time anyone has done a build. Maybe you have only one "IT full or near full build" on record, but, you have other builds that while they might not be the exact build you'd prefer, theresults match logical expectations. And IIRC you have builds that are beyond IT rules which STILL don't hit the numbers the committee insists are possible.

Nobody has said one thing about the fact that the ability to fix a mistake exists...so to me, this seems like a mistake, and it's a shame for the cars and the owners. 170 extra pounds is more than I'd want to needlessly carry.

To sum up:
I love the Process.
You and Jeff have been good about communicating, and being upfront, and that's appreciated.
I still think, (As I did when on the committee) that votes and voting records should be published.
I think the new "raised bar" for moving off the standard, and/or tighter evidentiary standards is creating defacto formulaic classing.
And I think we can, and should, do better.

[JeffYoung]

And the flip side is the tighter evidentiary standards avoid issues like motors getting tagged with 30% based on a few calls to builders, or because a six cylinder from another era and manufacturer made a lot of power and thus a modern motor of similar architecture should get the same adder.

There are a LOT of issues, in my view, in how some of the ITR weights were set. Instead of sticking with 25% when we didn't know much, a lot of guesswork went into adders and deducts for which we have zero real evidence to back up, or we have anecdotal or incorrect evidence.

Having seen the Process play out on the committee know for some time, I am very comfortable with how its done, very comfortable with the fact that we look for hard evidence to move off the default and very comfortable iwth the fact that we don't move off the default until we have that evidence.

I respect everything you guys did over the years in regards to the Process, and the ITAC in generall, but in my opinion that is "doing better" than the way some cars were treated over the last few years.

I think the new "raised bar" for moving off the standard, and/or tighter evidentiary standards is creating defacto formulaic classing.
And I think we can, and should, do better.

[JeffYoung]

Jake, you're losing me man. Disdain? No one has expressed any disdain that I'm aware of. I personally (and Josh -- I'll let other committee members speak for themselves) just have doubts about how conclusive the evidence is on the MR2. Like I said, 6-8 hp more in development and all of a sudden we have an issue if we classed it at 15%.

I am willing to agree that reasonable minds could look at the data and reach a conclusion of 15%. I'm having a hard time why you think that 5-6 dyno sheets, only one of which is an IT build, and without the years of development that went into other motors in IT, is somehow conclusive. I see a range of what is possible for this motor, from 15% (most likely) to 20% (possible) to 25% (very unlikely). But I respect the viewpoint of folks who ended up on both the lower and the higher end of that spectrum.

The more I read about dynos, and gains, the more I become very dubious of anyone who says that "this IT motor ALWAYS makes this amount of power." When we are talking about ranges of 5-10 hp -- which mean a lot in the Process -- I'm not sure we have the resolution in the data we are given to get up on a soapbox and say one number is absolutely right and all others are incorrect.


I've harped ( ;) ) on the issue that the majority of the committee has dug their heels in and expressed disdain regarding the evidence. Yes, that's their right. BUT, Jeff has gone on to say that the committee, as a whole, has been proactively taking the stance that they will not move off the standard...(and that suggests that IF they move they won't move far...) unless much higher evidentiary standards are met. So yes, you are correct that the Process and the protocols have been followed, it's also true that the bar has been raised.

That's where I have issues. I just don't think that's wise, and certainly in this case, I find it incredible that the committee stood firm on a number 10% higher than anything they've seen.

[lateapex911]

And the flip side is the tighter evidentiary standards avoid issues like motors getting tagged with 30% based on a few calls to builders, or because a six cylinder from another era and manufacturer made a lot of power and thus a modern motor of similar architecture should get the same adder.

There are a LOT of issues, in my view, in how some of the ITR weights were set. Instead of sticking with 25% when we didn't know much, a lot of guesswork went into adders and deducts for which we have zero real evidence to back up, or we have anecdotal or incorrect evidence.

Having seen the Process play out on the committee know for some time, I am very comfortable with how its done, very comfortable with the fact that we look for hard evidence to move off the default and very comfortable iwth the fact that we don't move off the default until we have that evidence.

I respect everything you guys did over the years in regards to the Process, and the ITAC in generall, but in my opinion that is "doing better" than the way some cars were treated over the last few years.

I would certainly agree that there have been instances where cars were classed on factors that have been less than well vetted.

However, in most cases, real world evidence hasn't supported that there have been problems with them.
Still I DO see your point. The MR2 though, to my eye (I've been seeing dyno plots on this cars for yeeeaaaars) has a bunch of evidence far greater than most of the cars you are thinking about when you cite the flip side.


I am willing to agree that reasonable minds could look at the data and reach a conclusion of 15%. I'm having a hard time why you think that 5-6 dyno sheets, only one of which is an IT build, and without the years of development that went into other motors in IT, is somehow conclusive. I see a range of what is possible for this motor, from 15% (most likely) to 20% (possible) to 25% (very unlikely). But I respect the viewpoint of folks who ended up on both the lower and the higher end of that spectrum.

You mentioned 6-8 more hp in development. Lets look at the data points now. Stock HP is what, 112 crank? Best build has been 112 whp? And you're saying that 6 or 8 more is possible. I guess I just don't see it. While you have one IT dyno plot, it's not the first time people have messed with the engine, and I think the bigger gains come early while later builds refine and yield smaller results, in general. Your build is very admirable, but lets face it, it's a polar opposite of this. (V8, very responsive to header tuning, and British production tolerances, plus your ECU work which has done things that just weren't possible when your car was built, have yielded huge improvements that just won't be seen on this very different motor.)

So, for me: 15%: Likely. 20% very doubtful, believe it when I see it., 25%, ludicrous.
But hey, that's just me, LOL

One more time: ;) What would the committee class the RX-8 at today?

[Andy Bettencourt]

You guys drive me batty sometimes. You were on the committee when we implemented the idea of the confidence factor to vary from the standard. The idea was that each member was to express how confident they were that the alternate horsepower was really what could be expected in IT trim.

Based on the evidence, when we did the MR2, there wasn't a high enough confidence to get lower than 115 (or something, I can't remember the specifics anymore) whp. That is to say, the committee didn't reach "confident" that this is the IT whp potential until we got that high.

This is the process that you loved. It's the one that I managed to get written down and added to the CRB ops manual as an appendix. It's based on the committee member's gut feelings based on evidence presented. Sorry if the confidence just wasn't that high. I'll tell you that I personally didn't have enough confidence in these numbers as low as 110. I felt like only one person has tried under these rules, and with plenty of other cars, we know that the first one that tried wasn't the one that "figured it out."

And like it or not, the "norm" is 30% right now. Without compelling evidence, it would still be up over 2500 lbs.

Can you please go barking up another tree? Maybe a fresh one so we can stop hashing over the same things?

You are right on all accounts Josh, except - like Jeff says - it seems the individual standard for 'confidence' is exceptionally high these days.

Sorry to agitate, but the 30% issue is so rediculous that it deserves a public thrashing at every possible moment.

But reasonable minds can diasagree.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why? Because we went through the very same data analyzing/confidence assessing process that this same group -- Kirk, Andy, Jake, Josh, and to a much lesser extent me -- came up with.

There was no gamesmanship and there was no BS. It was a straight assessment.



Oh NO it wasn't Jeff. If it was a straight assesment, it would be at 15%. You have NOTHING to prove it can even make that. So you used some fudge-factor, some educated guessing and some conservativism to place it at X% because you 'think that might be possible'.

That IS gamesmanship. It's not NEGATIVE gamesmanship, it's doing what you felt was right at the time...and I am all for that, I just disagree with the numbers based on the evidence we have all seen - or not seen - over the past 5 or so years.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And the flip side is the tighter evidentiary standards avoid issues like motors getting tagged with 30% based on a few calls to builders, or because a six cylinder from another era and manufacturer made a lot of power and thus a modern motor of similar architecture should get the same adder.

There are a LOT of issues, in my view, in how some of the ITR weights were set. Instead of sticking with 25% when we didn't know much, a lot of guesswork went into adders and deducts for which we have zero real evidence to back up, or we have anecdotal or incorrect evidence.

Having seen the Process play out on the committee know for some time, I am very comfortable with how its done, very comfortable with the fact that we look for hard evidence to move off the default and very comfortable iwth the fact that we don't move off the default until we have that evidence.

I respect everything you guys did over the years in regards to the Process, and the ITAC in generall, but in my opinion that is "doing better" than the way some cars were treated over the last few years.

And this is simply committee to committee change. No problem. The ITR stuff we could debate all day. 25% on everything is no more 'accurate' than a smattering of educated guessing based on internet dyno sheets, builder calls and architechure. Let's not call a firmer 25% more accurate, let's call it more consistant. When ITR was created, data was collected, checked for making sense, and published. If eveything was put at 25%, you would have no 968's, no S2000's, no ITR's and some stuff that could - and WILL make more than PP...you WILL see that.

Again, reasonable minds will disagree. I know this as FACT, you are doing what you think is best for the class and that is a bullseye. Not everyone is going to agree on everything, anytime.

[Z3_GoCar]

One or two dyno sheets of an "IT like" build are not enough...

Sometimes one or two builds are all you have. Rob sold his top notch built ITA Z3 because he was tired of being an also-ran. Now there's only one, and I don't think Noem has been too active. There's now only one Z3 running my motor, now that I'm forced to swap motors to get a better intake manifold. Rickey has told me he's along way from the 30% gain that's expected. I can tell you that grey areas were used to make my motor competitive in World Challenge. The biggest was a head swap with its better intake manifold. No way any of this is IT legal. If you looked at the numbers for SOPAC, you'd see that ITR is dead out here. We've had a total of 3 racers over 12 races. I'm keeping my original motor, if conditions change I might reinstall it and go back to ITR.

[jjjanos]

No, actually it doesn't. It leaves the new cars in B at their existing process weight, and drops some of the older ones down to their Process weight.

OK, overstatement on my part. A certain VW gets weight and the non-Process classified cars lose weight.

Weight until the 2002s and the non-cheater Volvos submit. Frankly, I'm amazed that they haven't already... either they are clutching at straws that the Process will be changed for B or they figure there isn't any point in getting the weight reductions.

[Knestis]

... either they are clutching at straws that the Process will be changed for B or they figure there isn't any point in getting the weight reductions.

...or they don't have data that makes a compelling case for anything other than a first-assumptions weight spec. I'd love to see some dyno sheets for the 2002s and 142s.

Kirk (aka "guy who drives a certain VW, that just GOT additional weight")

[jjjanos]

...or they don't have data that makes a compelling case for anything other than a first-assumptions weight spec. I'd love to see some dyno sheets for the 2002s and 142s.

Kirk (aka "guy who drives a certain VW, that just GOT additional weight")

BMW 2002 HP:100, IT-gain standard 30% = 2210 (Current 2280)

Mazda 626 (83-84) HP: 83, 30% gain = 1835 (Current 2300!)
(The higher HP engine isn't on the spec line)

And I believe the 142 loses a couple hundred pounds as well.

[Knestis]

BMW 2002 HP:100, IT-gain standard 30% = 2210 (Current 2280)

Mazda 626 (83-84) HP: 83, 30% gain = 1835 (Current 2300!)
(The higher HP engine isn't on the spec line)

And I believe the 142 loses a couple hundred pounds as well.

A 1983 Mazda 626? REALLY? There's actually a logbooked example out there in the wild somewhere...?

Why not go all the way and invoke the CRX HF as the poster child for the "problem?" It's spec weight would be something less than the three huge New Yorkers I saw in the cab of a Suzuki Grand Vitara yesterday but just because it's in the ITCS doesn't mean anyone is going to BUILD one - or that the ITAC should worry about it.

On the other hand the 142 and 2002 should really get the benefit of a good-faith try. The problem is, there's got to be consensus about what the multiplier should be - assuming you are still doing things that way. Contemporary documentation showed the 2002 to have 113hp but I believe we learned that was "gross." I don't recall there being a standard of 30% that applies.

K

[jjjanos]

A 1983 Mazda 626? REALLY? There's actually a logbooked example out there in the wild somewhere...?

The Mazda was grabbed at random as an example. I'd already done the 2002 and the Volvo when the op manual was leaked.

Nissan 240 (S12/CA20): HP 102 Weight: 2255 current: 2530
Nissan 240 (S10/Z22): Hp 103 Weight: 2275 Current: 2705

I know that at least one of these two cars has run at Summit.

Now, mind you the source for that HP number is wiki, so the calcs could be wrong.

I think there is ample evidence that (excluding all the VWs that I haven't looked at), the older cars in ITB are going to lose weight.

The Geo, however, seems to be dead on.


I don't recall there being a standard of 30% that applies.

Skimming the thread? Unless "several" 10/10ths builds with dynos are given to the ITAC, the car norm is 30%.

I'm assuming that since the ITAC seems so reluctant to lower the multiplier, the same reluctance would apply for increasing it.

[rcc85]

My understanding is that the "norm" is 30% only for multi-valve engines in ITB, it is 25% for the rest of the cars.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[Andy Bettencourt]

My understanding is that the "norm" is 30% only for multi-valve engines in ITB, it is 25% for the rest of the cars.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona


Correct.

[Knestis]

Yup.

I don't think there's any doubt that a lot of B cars will lose weight if/when they are processed. I don't dispute it and don't think it's a problem.

However - again - the problem with B is that it's more exceptions than it is cars that adhere to first assumptions and rules. I spent a LOT of time assembling data on B cars while on the ITAC (more than 80 lines in an Excel SS), as we were asked by the CRB how viable it would be to engineer a "do-over" of that class. They go back to 1968 for Pete's sake.

Simply applying a 25% adder to the Volvo's stock 118hp leaves it at something like 140# lighter than it currently is. That *might* be fair but it's up to the ITAC to make a systematic decision about it. That's what the "confidence" system was supposed to allow - judgment by the committee, documented, repeated, and transparent.

BUT (and I think this goes to Charlies argument) if this particular make/model example can't get down to its target weight in B, it is NOT INCUMBENT on the ITAC to restructure the entire class to make it fit a preconceived notion that it should be in that class. When we did the math on the New Beetle and evidence suggested it couldn't get as light as it needed to be in B, it ended up in C. That's how it should work.

Finally, to your earlier point (JJJ) - I don't see the current Process (or even the B weight/power ratio) as "faulty" due to the context/influence of cheated-up cars. The ratio has to be set SOMEWHERE and no matter where it is, there will be tweeners/outliers that get dorked. "Different" will just be "differently faulty" - fix the Volvos' situation and screw someone else. Whatever. I recall something about Charlie looking at Proteges. Re-do the weight of that car (one of the most powerful and heaviest or current-spec options in B ) with 142-friendly math and it's going to be even harder to keep brakes/tires under it than it already is. Or it will be a featherlight A car. Or a tweener, trapped forever in B+/A- land.

The ultimate lesson out of all of this is that we need a repeatable process in which we can have confidence (unlike the current 1.3 crap, proof that silliness is still alive and well in the ITAC/CRB relationship), AND we need to apply it to tidy things up...

K

[pfcs]

"Simply applying a 25% adder to the Volvo's stock 118hp leaves it at something like 140# lighter than it currently is."
Are you talking 240 or 142E? The 142E workshop manual states 130hp.:(

[Charlie Broring]

BUT (and I think this goes to Charlies argument) if this particular make/model example can't get down to its target weight in B, it is NOT INCUMBENT on the ITAC to restructure the entire class to make it fit a preconceived notion that it should be in that class.


Isn't restructuring of ITB exactly what the CRB/ITAC is doing? And isn't it just possible that this is why ITB is such a hot topic here and why ITB drivers recently submitted so many letters to the CRB?

[Gary L]

"Simply applying a 25% adder to the Volvo's stock 118hp leaves it at something like 140# lighter than it currently is."
Are you talking 240 or 142E? The 142E workshop manual states 130hp.:(
The 130 hp in the 142E factory shop manual is SAE gross, essentially useless for our calculations. However, the DIN rating for that engine is also in that same table of the shop manual, listed as 120 DIN. And that same 120 DIN rating is in the 1970/71 Volvo 1800E FSM, that engine being identical to the '71 142E powerplant.

So... multiply 120 x .986 and you have equivalent SAE net hp, at 118. This gives us 148 IT-prep flywheel hp using the "standard" 1.25 multiplier, which results in a weight reduction of 75 lbs, to 2565 from 2640 (after adding back 50 lbs for double a-arm front suspension).

[Knestis]

Isn't restructuring of ITB exactly what the CRB/ITAC is doing? And isn't it just possible that this is why ITB is such a hot topic here and why ITB drivers recently submitted so many letters to the CRB?

The fact that ITB has been largely neglected, and includes a ton of "legacy" listings made over a long history of approaches, accounts for the member interest. But a couple of questions since I guess I'm not understanding the "restructuring" point:

1. What actions do you see as part and parcel to this "restructuring?"

2. What has been the timeline of these actions?

3. On what examples (non MARRS, since it's not a "DC Region" issue) are outcomes of those actions being assessed?

The current B power/weight ratio has been codified since at latest 2007. The "moved from ITA" cars (e.g., the Accord and MkIII Golf, I presume?) have been listed in B since what, 2002...?

It's doesn't seem like we've had a sudden applecart-upsetting incident here but I might be missing something important.

K

[jjjanos]

Yup.

OK, so the multiplier isn't 30% across the board, it's 25% except for multi-valves. All that means is that for non-multi-valve cars, the problem is greater.


Simply applying a 25% adder to the Volvo's stock 118hp leaves it at something like 140# lighter than it currently is. That *might* be fair but it's up to the ITAC to make a systematic decision about it. That's what the "confidence" system was supposed to allow - judgment by the committee, documented, repeated, and transparent.

And without multiple dyno sheet data, the ITAC has painted itself into the off-the-shelf multiplier. The only difference is that the ITAC doesn't need a multitude of 10/10ths builds to increase the multiplier, it just needs a multitude of sheets from LEGAL cars.



BUT (and I think this goes to Charlies argument) if this particular make/model example can't get down to its target weight in B, it is NOT INCUMBENT on the ITAC to restructure the entire class to make it fit a preconceived notion that it should be in that class. When we did the math on the New Beetle and evidence suggested it couldn't get as light as it needed to be in B, it ended up in C. That's how it should work.

Come on, you're better than this. You know the difference... the standard for B was picked because of the "known" performance of the already classed cars. The Beetle didn't fit within that envelope.

Slashing weight and/or moving B cars to ITC is entirely different because the arbitrary HP:weight ratio was selected because these cars FIT IT. If the older cars are so far off the ratio, then the ratio itself is the problem.


Finally, to your earlier point (JJJ) - I don't see the current Process (or even the B weight/power ratio) as "faulty" due to the context/influence of cheated-up cars. The ratio has to be set SOMEWHERE and no matter where it is, there will be tweeners/outliers that get dorked.

Of course it's faulty. WHY did they set the number there? I thought it was because most of the cars were getting something close to the number. If everybody loses weight or gets dropped a class, then the number that was set because these cars already were at or near it is the problem.

[AjG]

Yep…pretty much why we sold our Pintos. It was obvious that the car would never make weight with that multiplier and that the Hondas and VW’s were running the show.

I guess the new idea is to move the old fatties down to ITC but I don’t think that’s really going to work either. Even with my 200lbs overweight ITB car(even heavier than it would end up in ITC?) I could pretty easily run under the ITC lap record. I don’t see how you can put a 2.3L car in ITC?

[JeffYoung]

Speaking for me only:

1. Charlie did a spread sheet that showed if you run the "old" ITB cars through the process and use the 17:1 multiplier most of them stay essentially teh same weight (a few do not), and appear in almost all cases to be able to make an acheivable race weight.

2. THe newer cars that were Processed before stay the same. THe Accord should (in my opinion) pick up weight since it is multivalbe.

3. Then, you get to the rest of the mess in ITB as Kirk said. A lot of cars will get bumped down to C. We've gotten some push back on this -- you can't put a 90 hp, 2600 lb car in C! -- but we've chosen to trust the process (since it appears to work) and go with that. You will see higher hp cars at higher weights in C, and it may be the best thing to happen to that class honestly.

4. Charlie's best point while in the committee (I feel ok sharing this) was that while I disagreed the power/weight in ITB was off, in ITC it looked even worse. SOme existing cars in ITC would weigh like, nothing, if run through the process now. Not sure what to do about that yet.

In sum, I frankly think the sh$tstorm over ITB is overblown. If the older cars are processed, they will (as Gary points out for the 142) lose a bit of weight. If they can't compete at that point, I would attribute it to driver, prep and, to a certain extent, the fact that we can't promise a level playing field between 1970s tech and 2000s tech. We can give you roughly equal power to weight and let you have at it, but that's the best we can do.

And if we make that as repeatable, transparent and objective as possible, that still seems a lot better than the "old" regime of some crazy curb weight formula (no offense to our predecessors on the ITAC who used it).

[jjjanos]

A 1983 Mazda 626? REALLY? There's actually a logbooked example out there in the wild somewhere...?

BTW... does it surprise you that nobody has built this car? It's 500 pounds overweight at the new spec -- hell, that's like being forced to race while towing an ITC car at the new process weights -- and probably 200-300 pounds heavy compared to the pre-process weights of the rest of the class.

[JeffYoung]

Which is why it needs to go to C. Lots of cars (or at least more than a few) in B with 2500-2600 lbs curb weights that should go to C like the Dodge Daytona did.


BTW... does it surprise you that nobody has built this car? It's 500 pounds overweight at the new spec -- hell, that's like being forced to race while towing an ITC car at the new process weights -- and probably 200-300 pounds heavy compared to the pre-process weights of the rest of the class.

[jjjanos]

Which is why it needs to go to C. Lots of cars (or at least more than a few) in B with 2500-2600 lbs curb weights that should go to C like the Dodge Daytona did.

You are missing the point entirely.

Q. Why do some of these cars need to go to ITC?

A. Because they cannot make weight given the target Weight:HP number
Q. Why was this W:HP number selected?

A. Because someone assumed that most of the cars in ITB already were close/at to the WP number.
Q. You mean the HP:W number was picked because it fit the class based on the current weights?

A. Pretty much, yes.
Q. So, doesn't that mean that if many cars aren't at this ratio or no longer are ITB cars because of the number - the number picked because it was assumed that they already were near it, that the assumed W:HP ratio for the class is suspect and in need of revision to better fit the traditions of the class?

Come one... The Finger of Glod didn't enscribe a stone tabled with the words... "Thou shall set ITB weights based on a 17 figure."

The horse is out of the barn already, so there probably isn't anything that can be done about it, but it seems to me that increasing the weight of the newer cars to fit within the class traditions impacts a hell of a lot fewer drivers than jacking around or demoting so many of the cars already built.

[JeffYoung]

I'm not missing the point. I'm trying to make the right decision for a class, not just "ITB at Summit Point."

17:1 has been used since 2007. All new cars have been classed using it. Some of the older ones -- primarily the cars running at the front of ITB at the time of the Realignment -- were processed using it. Most of the old ones can drop a reasonable amount of weight and still "make" 17:1. This includes all or almost all of the cars presently being run and competitive in ITB.

The problem children that can't make 17:1 at a reasonable weight are old legacy curb weight classed cars that got dumped in B for God knows what reason. Those cars (in my view) should and need to go to C if they can't make ITB weight. Hell, a 2600 lb curb weight Dodge Daytona would have weighed like 1800 lbs at its process weight in B.

In my view, doing the above -- keepign 17:1 and moving the outliers to C -- impacts fewer of the competitive cars currently running in B, and none of the already processed new cars currently running in ITB. It has the least amount of affect on existing cars and drivers, which is why it makes sense (to me).

[gran racing]

There are no ITB cars outside of Summit Point and we should change those based upon results. Gesh, get with it Jeff.

I think if we replaced ITS going to ITA we wouldn't be having the same discussion. A bit part of this issue (IMO) is that ITC has such small fields.

An issue that has hurt the 2002 and a few other cars is that in the past there have been some cheater cars (or so it's believed) which produced more than enough power. Heck, I know that a couple of 2002s I've raced against destroyed me on a straight and I didn't exactly feel bad about their lack of power. Legal car, fair assumptions being made, and so forth?

[Chip42]

Also,there is no wheel size problem moving from B to C, so it's easy to do.

The positive knock on effect is improving ITC car counts and diversity, and improved competitiveness for everything classified.

From the standpoint of making things as level (thus competitive) as possible, moving cars up and down classes in order to keep them at the correct process weight and not unachievably light or overly heavy makes sense. Everyone in IT should support this objective, even if you do not support "the process" or some component of it. Why does it matter if a "staple" ITB car turned out to be a heavily cheated up ITB car that, when prepared within the rules, cant make the needed power and, when readjusted by the process, needs to go on a diet or move to ITC in order to do so? changing the whole process multiplier isn't the answer, it's not the fault of any ITAC past or current that cheating was so widespread at the time that the power/weight figures were determined.

If you want to run what you brung where you are used to running it, I undersdtand why you might be frustrated by a reclassification. But it is "not in keeping with class[ification] philosphy", which assumes a desire to race competitively over a desire to race within a given group.

[gran racing]

Yet another nice reason for dual classing vehicles being moved to another class.

Interesting how we can have SM, SSM, SM2, and so forth yet not that. I know, it's about car counts. ;)

[Ron Earp]

Interesting how we can have SM, SSM, SM2, and so forth yet not that. I know, it's about car counts. ;)

Bundle those up and put them in IT classes, along with IT7 into ITB, and things would get cleaned up quite a bit.

[jjjanos]

I'm not missing the point. I'm trying to make the right decision for a class, not just "ITB at Summit Point."

Because the general mix of cars at Summit Point is so far off from the class in whole? Scanning a handful of 2011 regional results sheets, when one can find an ITB car, the faces may change, but the cars don't appear to - BMWs, Volvos, Hondas and VWs... with an oddball Audi or Mazda thrown in for spice.

And let's put things in perspective, shall we...

206 ITB entries through the end of June.
17 of them were at Summit Point alone... and we've had 1 race. That's 8% of the total or enough to rank as the 3rd largest division.
At least 31 of those entries are from Summit Point and its regular drivers. Thats' 15% of the total and nearly as large as the rest of NEDIV combined.

So, if you are actually are surprised that those drivers are all over this, you probably should do a little community outreach... cause the guy who runs in a field of 2 ITBs probably isn't going to give a crap about what happens.


17:1 has been used since 2007. All new cars have been classed using it. Some of the older ones -- primarily the cars running at the front of ITB at the time of the Realignment -- were processed using it.

You mean this (http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/06-2-fastrack-addendum.pdf)? Cause I see 6 cars that got realigned in ITB and I believe former members of the ITAC said that ITB was, for the most part, left alone because it was both a cluster and deemed, a-priori, not out of whack. So, I don't see a large number of cars that were realigned.

As for its use since 2007.. is there a point there? I.e. How many cars have been classified since 2007 and how many have been built?


Most of the old ones can drop a reasonable amount of weight and still "make" 17:1. This includes all or almost all of the cars presently being run and competitive in ITB.

Is this simply an assertion or has the ITAC asked those losing weight how much ballast they carry? I'm assuming that if you think this, the new process weights on those cars have been computed (when will we see them become official?) and there is some sense of the dead weight on them. I know my car carried a boatload of ballast and I'm glad it's gone, but I don't know if that's the case for everyone.


In my view, doing the above -- keepign 17:1 and moving the outliers to C -- impacts fewer of the competitive cars currently running in B, and none of the already processed new cars currently running in ITB. It has the least amount of affect on existing cars and drivers, which is why it makes sense (to me).

Which is a reasonable opinion, if backed with evidence.

My view is that ITB had a good competitive balance until the cars classified under the 17:1 regime started appearing and then the apple cart was overturned.

I guess I thought the point of any classification process (not THE PROCESS) was to attempt rough equalization across cars in that class -- something the old ITB seemed to have. Under such a regime, using a 17:1 ratio would be a by-product of the main goal.

Now it seems that the primary goal of THE PROCESS is ensuring that a specific formula be used and the actual outcome/results are viewed as unimportant.

[Chip42]

I guess I thought the point of any classification process (not THE PROCESS) was to attempt rough equalization across cars in that class -- something the old ITB seemed to have.
Is it possible that "the old ITB" had this balance because only the good cars were being run? I'll agree that it sucks when a new car comes in and is not a perfect match to the existing set, but new blood is vital, particularly when the strong cars in the class are 30+ years old. The process is suppsoed to rouhgly equalize everyone, but hasn't been applied accross the board for all of the reasons specified by Jeff etc... so ITB looks a mess.

my thinking is that it's poised to be the strongest class in the category once everything shakes out.

[JeffYoung]

The problem with focusing solely on ITB at Summit Point is not the mix of cars, or even the number.

It is the difference in prep levels, and driver skill and suitability of cars to that track.

From the perspective of someone who doesn't go there, the 4-5 letters (that was it, maybe a few more) that we got from the ITB "old guard" at Summit that in most cases just blatantl asked for weight to be put on the "new" ITA cars in ITB seemed to be pretty misguided.

They mostly turned on the fact that -- no reason not to be specific -- Tristan Herbert showed up in a top notch build A3 Golf, and drove the wheels off of it to track records. Jeff Underwood then did the same in a Civic.

Even then, the older cars weren't that far behind.

I've got no idea of the prep levels of all of the cars in B at Summit, but I'm not afraid to disclose that when I asked hard questions of Charlie as to whether he had data acquisition, or when the last time he had done spring rate testing, or what shocks he was running, I didn't get very good answers.

My personal opinion is that the above just reinforces the need to turn a blind eye to track specific performance and focus on power to weight. It was probably just a matter of luck that ITB had a "good competitive balance" before 17:1, and that view is also rather myopic. I can tell you a guy driving a Dodge Daytona in ITB at 2600 lbs didn't feel that way.

I really have a hard time understanding why anyone would legitimately say a curb weight based system is better than getting all cars close to 17:1 (those that can make it, and moving those that can't down) and letting them have at it -- unless the curb weight system unfairly benefitted them.

Actual fair results flow from correct use of the Process. We try to get the power/weights as close as we can and then let people run.

Perceived "fair" results can be colored and bent and biased by driver skill, prep, track suitability, etc.

If you are really saying that we should model ITB after "relative" competitiveness at Summitt, there's not much I can do to help you understand how we do things now and why it is the correct way to do them.

[JeffYoung]

And before we continue with this, I'd really like to know one thing JJ/Pants:

What exactly is it you are advocating for, other than "just take issue with everything everyone else says?" What is your idea of a "fix?" Are you suggesting we push the class p/w multiplier back up? Meaning your car and others get as much as a couple of hundred lbs of weight?

[jjjanos]

What exactly is it you are advocating for, other than "just take issue with everything everyone else says?" What is your idea of a "fix?" Are you suggesting we push the class p/w multiplier back up? Meaning your car and others get as much as a couple of hundred lbs of weight?

What does it matter? The CRB isn't going to let the ITAC change the process again, now is it? And it's hardly likely than there will be a New NEW process during the lifetime of most of the cars currently running, but if we could rewind the clock...

- Remember what the point of the process is -- a mix of good competition within the class. If we're going to go with the fixed HP ratio, then, the imposed ratio, since we are imposing it on an existing group of cars, should be pretty close to what the cars already were running from the slipshod method.
- If the HP ratio is going to jack around the weights, then before implementing it, know what the impacts will be BEFORE changing it. These are the cars being run. If we don't move their IT-gain number, what will happen to their weight. Can these cars MAKE that weight?

Curb-weight, some magical process... who cares as long as the method gets it correct and has a means for correcting it when it doesn't.

It was pretty damn clear to me when the newer cars appeared at Summit that they were classified incorrect when compared to the old regime cars.

Now, some of those cars haven't had the development they've needed and until they do, they don't have much cause to bitch... but I saw what the newer cars did to some of the top-notch cars in the class. Cars that had fresh motors and well-developed, Cars driven by someone who had thousands of miles at Summit and who couldn't keep up with the newer cars for long.


They mostly turned on the fact that -- no reason not to be specific -- Tristan Herbert showed up in a top notch build A3 Golf, and drove the wheels off of it to track records. Jeff Underwood then did the same in a Civic.

Because there is strong belief and plenty of circumstantial evidence that the old record was set by a car with an illegal cam. And yes, they did throw paper and the Stewards. I believe the stewards not only refused to hear it, but threated their own vexious protest if the drivers made noise (I believe it was one of many mechanical protests against that car that year). I do know that, off-season, the method suggested for testing the cam became part of the GCR and, lo and behold, the record setting car went off to run FP with his car.

So, yeah, when someone pounds that record, it's going to turn noses towards Denmark.

As far as the weight... I'm on the fence. I like less wear on consumables, but if it upsets the balance in ITB... what's the point?

[JeffYoung]

Fair points, and I appreciate the thoughts.

Maybe not surprising but I think your two bullet points are exactly what the ITAC did during the Great Realignment.

As far as the track record getting lowered, it was going to happen. Classes get faster. Tires are better. Brake pads better. Shocks better. Data acquisition is available now to the "masses." Engine management better. Suspension development better.

This is where I had some frustration with the "old guard" ITB crowd at Summit who were upset that Tristan and Jeff had done so well there. It seemed to me a lot of their development was frozen in time. They had no need to get faster for a long time, until the newer cars showed up.

At the end of the day, for me, if the "old" and "new" cars can make Process weight at 17:1, that is the end of story. It will result in less apple cart unsettling, less disruption and hopefully good close racing.

[ajmr2]

I have to come to the defense of Tristan Herbert, the ITB VW driver at Summit Point. He is an excellent driver and an up front guy, so I flatly reject any cheater accusations. My understanding about the Honda was that it was found to have an illegal gear ratio and was DQd earlier this year.
I'd also like to caution everyone that Jeff doesn't have to answer ANY questions that are raised on this forum. He could just monitor it like many people probably do and do what he can in his official capacity. Whether you agree with him or not, he deserves our appreciation and respect for putting his neck on the block for us week after week, post after post, answering the same questions sometimes several times as other people jump in on the last page. I believe he and the other former and current members of the ITAC are trying their best to answer our questions, doubts, concerns, obsessions, etc, etc. So please, let's keep it civilized, OK?
:023:

[JeffYoung]

I agree with this, with the following qualification.

I think 25% default is no more accurate and I don't think I ever said it was. That I agree with. But it is more consistent and repeatable, and sets a rule that is easier to follow. We go with 25% unless and until we see pretty convincing data to the contrary.

I agree that it was "harder" to do this at class start up for ITR than for a class with existing builds.


And this is simply committee to committee change. No problem. The ITR stuff we could debate all day. 25% on everything is no more 'accurate' than a smattering of educated guessing based on internet dyno sheets, builder calls and architechure. Let's not call a firmer 25% more accurate, let's call it more consistant. When ITR was created, data was collected, checked for making sense, and published. If eveything was put at 25%, you would have no 968's, no S2000's, no ITR's and some stuff that could - and WILL make more than PP...you WILL see that.

Again, reasonable minds will disagree. I know this as FACT, you are doing what you think is best for the class and that is a bullseye. Not everyone is going to agree on everything, anytime.

[JeffYoung]

I can't say. Each committee member votes his confidence level.

But I hope you would agree that the good thing now is that in all cases, we'd be using the Process to do the weight and arguing about gain, rather than eyeballing a weight we all thought was competitive -- subjectively.

This is where everyone owes a ton of thanks to you guys -- Jake, Andy, Kirk in particular. You got us to where we are using the Process smoothly and efficiently in committee. You should have been allowed to see the "pay off" on this, and I'm sorry you were not.




One more time: ;) What would the committee class the RX-8 at today?

[jjjanos]

Fair points, and I appreciate the thoughts.

Thank you.


Maybe not surprising but I think your two bullet points are exactly what the ITAC did during the Great Realignment.

I recognize the above. The problem is that for ITB, it seems to be a case of GIGO and then an almost religious adherence to the number that came out. Wasn't the ITB multiplier based on a type of car that almost everyone admits was of questionable legality? Even with that admission, it was as if 17 was the eleventh commandment.

And when ITC is looked at, it certainly seems as if all the cars that are popular (if not all the cars that weren't processed with THE PROCESS) will lose weight with the 18.84 ratio.

[jjjanos]

I have to come to the defense of Tristan Herbert, the ITB VW driver at Summit Point. He is an excellent driver and an up front guy, so I flatly reject any cheater accusations. My understanding about the Honda was that it was found to have an illegal gear ratio and was DQd earlier this year.

I don't think anyone is accusing Tristan of being illegal. It was the car that set the record broken by Tristan that was seen as fishy.

[JeffYoung]

I don't think anyone was "stuck" on 17:1. The problem is once it was used for a while -- and it was -- before the issue with the 142 "target" and it is legality became apparent, we'd already classed a lot of cars with it (and the six you mention in the GR were all very popular cars).

So the issue then became, how do we do the least amount of damage to the class in "fixing" the problem? Do we reprocess the 142, or do we readjust the whole class to a new power/weight?

For the reasons I set forth above, I still firmly believe staying with 17:1 does the least amount of damage to the class.

Although, it does not address the fundamental complaint we got from some of the old car drivers in WDC that the "new cars are too fast" and the "old cars need help." Well, it does address -- it sets the power/weight the same for everyone once all cars are processed -- just not the way those guys wanted it addressed (which is was "add weight to new cars" and "subtract weight from old").


Thank you.



I recognize the above. The problem is that for ITB, it seems to be a case of GIGO and then an almost religious adherence to the number that came out. Wasn't the ITB multiplier based on a type of car that almost everyone admits was of questionable legality? Even with that admission, it was as if 17 was the eleventh commandment.

And when ITC is looked at, it certainly seems as if all the cars that are popular (if not all the cars that weren't processed with THE PROCESS) will lose weight with the 18.84 ratio.

[gran racing]

We go with 25% unless and until we see pretty convincing data to the contrary.

Unless it has the magic B or C in the class and is a "multivalve" because it has no effect in any other class. Total crap. If a car is deemed to make 30% based on good information, fine. Sucks to be forced to start with an illogical assumption which isn't even equally applied.


It was pretty damn clear to me when the newer cars appeared at Summit that they were classified incorrect when compared to the old regime cars.

Each time I've been at Summit I've received some crap from a couple of drivers. When I ask how many heat cycles they have on their tires, when their car was last on they dyno, how well built the package is, how much they continue working on the driver, I can't help but shake my head. Oh, no, that can't be it.


Admittedly I'm starting to care less about this game and recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the IT category.

[jjjanos]

Is it possible that "the old ITB" had this balance because only the good cars were being run? I'll agree that it sucks when a new car comes in and is not a perfect match to the existing set, but new blood is vital, particularly when the strong cars in the class are 30+ years old. The process is suppsoed to rouhgly equalize everyone, but hasn't been applied accross the board for all of the reasons specified by Jeff etc... so ITB looks a mess.

And those newer cars could have been brought into the class with an HP ratio consistent with the one already established in the class... a ratio somewhere in the range of 18-19.

And conveniently overlooked in the discussion of ITB are specifics as to what this does to ITC.... some of the popular cars are going to lose as much as 25% (!) of their weight and other than the ITC cars classified using the 18.84, I have yet to find a classified car that isn't going to lose at least 100lbs.

[JeffYoung]

You have no idea what you are talking about when you say "conveniently overlooked." I suppose you are suggesting we are choosing to ignore it.

However, that issue - the appropriate power to weight in ITC -- has been discussed at length and is the one problem that Charlie highlighted that I think has some real issues behind it.

Could have? I guess they could have. But they weren't, primarily (apparently) because cheated up Volvo dyno plots were submitted as legitimate. So it is now water under the bridge and the correct step here is, again, to do the least damage as possible. For me, it's pretty clear that (a) adding potentially hundreds of pounds to all of the newer cars running in B would be disruptive and damaging especially when (b) the key old cars would lose weight, but not enough to make their race weights at 17:1 unacheivable.

ITB has consumed an enormous amount of the ITAC's time over the last two or three years due to the Audi, the MR2, the 30% adder, and now this problem a few of the Volvo and 2002 drivers in WDCR have with the 17:1 ratio. Again, we are back to the fundamental concept of we are getting all cars close to an equal power to weight ratio. Time to move on, go develop your cars and your driving, and race.


And those newer cars could have been brought into the class with an HP ratio consistent with the one already established in the class... a ratio somewhere in the range of 18-19.

And conveniently overlooked in the discussion of ITB are specifics as to what this does to ITC.... some of the popular cars are going to lose as much as 25% (!) of their weight and other than the ITC cars classified using the 18.84, I have yet to find a classified car that isn't going to lose at least 100lbs.

[rsportvolvo]

Seems that my Volvo 240 reclassification is right at the center of several ITB issues debated here. Unfortunately the CRB is sitting on the ITAC's recommendation. Is the outcome of the Volvo 240 going to set the precedent for reclassifications? dual classification (same chassis, different driveline)? moving down to ITC for weight reasons? Any hints from the ITAC folks?

[Knestis]

...My view is that ITB had a good competitive balance until the cars classified under the 17:1 regime started appearing and then the apple cart was overturned. ...

Now it seems that the primary goal of THE PROCESS is ensuring that a specific formula be used and the actual outcome/results are viewed as unimportant. ...

The key here - and a crucial aspect of the argument for not changing the base weight ratio in B - is that YOU ARE CORRECT with your second assertion.

The Process is designed to be as blind as possible to observed performance because that is way more "faulty" than the error introduced by judicious, repeatable application of the math used by the ITAC. What if slower guys (aka not Tristan and Jeff; me) had been the only ones to build said "new cars?"

Based on Summit lap times, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, even with the cars in question at their current weights. I KNOW that I'm still about 1.5 seconds slower than Tristan at Summit, when I really put my head down. I was surrounded by 2002s (and Charlie) at last year's MARRS 10. If Jeff, Dave, and Tristan were racing SM rather than ITB, it would have LOOKED as though we had perfect "competitive balance" even with weights at their then-current spec.

K

[erlrich]

Now it seems that the primary goal of THE PROCESS is ensuring that a specific formula be used and the actual outcome/results are viewed as unimportant.

Jeff - as I understand it that has always been the goal of The Process. It took me a while to grasp the concept that outcomes are unimportant, and once I did I decided I'm really not a big fan of it. I am of the opinion (stop reading here Dr. K) that a group of intelligent, objective, dedicated people (like Josh, Andy, Jeff, Kirk, Jake, etc.) could use a hp/wt formula as a base, and then adjust weights based on observation & knowledge of each car's quirks, and get competition that is just as close (IMO closer) than The Process does. (Sorry again K - I told you to stop reading...).

I realize that would take a lot more work, and obviously would not be as blindly objective as The Process, so I can see where there is the attraction for the later. I've come to the conclusion, though, that it is impossible to develop a strictly formulaic process for classing cars that produces parity within the class.

[jjjanos]

You have no idea what you are talking about when you say "conveniently overlooked." I suppose you are suggesting we are choosing to ignore it.

I am not privy to the ITAC discussions, but in regards to this discussion, which has focused on ITB, it seems that references to the mess the 18.84 makes of ITC has simply be given lip service.


However, that issue - the appropriate power to weight in ITC -- has been discussed at length and is the one problem that Charlie highlighted that I think has some real issues behind it.

Oh no... we have a ratio. It's 18.84. There are new cars that have been classified under it. The ITB ratio might have been the 11th Commandment, but that makes the ITC ratio the 12th Commandment.

Or is setting the ratio into stone dependent on which cars got reclassified?


(b) the key old cars would lose weight, but not enough to make their race weights at 17:1 unacheivable.

I keep hearing that, but it isn't clear that this is an assertion or based on empirical data from the drivers impacted.


ITB has consumed an enormous amount of the ITAC's time over the last two or three years due to the Audi, the MR2, the 30% adder, and now this problem a few of the Volvo and 2002 drivers in WDCR have with the 17:1 ratio.

If the same number and mix of drivers came from NEDIV and SoWDiv it would make a difference? I would hope not. You're hearing grousing from DC region drivers because they have one of, if not the, strongest ITB fields. Maybe instead of dismissing their comments with "it's a DC Region problem", you should consider the possibility that since they regular race with 15 or more ITB cars, (as compared to places where a 15 car run group of multiple classes is viewed as huge), they might have a sense of what this could do to the class.

Perhaps you overlooked this --


That's 8% of the total or enough to rank as the 3rd largest division.
At least 31 of those entries are from Summit Point and its regular drivers. Thats' 15% of the total and nearly as large as the rest of NEDIV combined.


Again, we are back to the fundamental concept of we are getting all cars close to an equal power to weight ratio. Time to move on, go develop your cars and your driving, and race.

And to hell with what it might do to the class.


Is the outcome of the Volvo 240 going to set the precedent for reclassifications? dual classification (same chassis, different driveline)? moving down to ITC for weight reasons? Any hints from the ITAC folks?

As an ITB car, I think the 240 is going to lose somewhere between 300-400 pounds and, as an ITC car, it's still going to lose around 100 lbs from its ITB weight.

But hey, we've got numbers set in stone.


The key here - and a crucial aspect of the argument for not changing the base weight ratio in B - is that YOU ARE CORRECT with your second assertion.

Yep, to hell with what it might do to the class.


The Process is designed to be as blind as possible to observed performance because that is way more "faulty" than the error introduced by judicious, repeatable application of the math used by the ITAC. What if slower guys (aka not Tristan and Jeff; me) had been the only ones to build said "new cars?"

Then the problem in THE PROCESS would not have been discovered as quickly. Once THE PROCESS was set in stone and someone with a spreadsheet started crunching numbers, everyone would get what the Emperor was wearing. There are plenty of guys who only care about winning and who don't care whether it is done with a car that is carrying less weight per HP than everyone else.

The starting point of THE PROCESS is the problem -- equating HP:lb ratios. There's omitted variable problems all over the place... aero is omitted. Tire/wheel size is omitted. The actual performance gains from an IT build are too simplistic and changing it is too dependent on the better nature of man.

Look at the ITC CRX and Civic - identical weights. Yet one has a drag coefficient of around 0 and the other punches a hole so big that a T-72 could get a tow. Clearly, the 2 cars are not the same.

The idea of "having a place to race" was fine when folks were just looking for a cheap way to do W2W and didn't have the cash to convert the old SS car to a Prod or GT, but that's not IT anymore. THE PROCESS runs a significant risk of creating THE CAR and, if the assumed HP gain is correct, there's no way to fix it within the rules. It's already happening in A IT class and if IT every gets a shot at the Runoffs, it'll be a done-deal by the second year. There will be one or two cars capable of winning and everyone else will be grid fill.

WTF is the ITAC going to do when someone asks for an ITC car to get reweighted? I ran the CRX and it loses only 100 lbs. There's one car I've done that loses close to 500 pounds.

I suppose the one good thing is that it will strengthen ITC because it'll be so cheap to run an ITC car. You'll only have to change the brake pads and tires when it's time to do an engine rebuild.

[rcc85]

I think the problem is that there are cars in ITB that have had their weights set by a variety of methods (curb weight, The Process, drawing numbers out of hat, etc). That has resulted in some inequities, especially as some cars have lost weight (or new cars have entered the category) and some legacy cars have not be adjusted.

We know that there are still some cars that are way too heavy (Mustangs come to mind) and there may be some that are too light (Geos, perhaps?).

I don't have my copy of the GCR handy. How many cars are listed in ITB? Out of those, how many have not had their weight set by the process? If we narrow that down to cars that have actually entered a race in the last 2 years, is that a practical number to reprocess? Would there need to be individual requests for each of those cars?

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[JeffYoung]

Pantsguy, if you truly think we are doing things just to do them and "to hell with the rest of the class" then there is no point discussing this further.

We looked at this in detail and I personally decided (and I think the rest of the committee other than Charlie who quit when he didn't get his way agreed) that changing the power to weight ratio now would cause the most damage to the class by requiring the "new" cars that had run for 3-4 years under 17:1 to gain as much as several hundred pounds, while at the same time processing the "old" cars at that power/weight would not result in much change. Charlie has the spreadsheet. I'm sure you've seen it.

I agree the problem with the power/weight ratio is worse in ITC. Instead of trying to work through that problem with us, Charlie quit.

You are now to the point where you just want to argue for argument's sake without even a hint of doing anything constructive.

And no, the ITB world does not revolve around Summit Point.

[quadzjr]

I think the problem is that there are cars in ITB that have had their weights set by a variety of methods (curb weight, The Process, drawing numbers out of hat, etc). That has resulted in some inequities, especially as some cars have lost weight (or new cars have entered the category) and some legacy cars have not be adjusted.

We know that there are still some cars that are way too heavy (Mustangs come to mind) and there may be some that are too light (Geos, perhaps?).

I don't have my copy of the GCR handy. How many cars are listed in ITB? Out of those, how many have not had their weight set by the process? If we narrow that down to cars that have actually entered a race in the last 2 years, is that a practical number to reprocess? Would there need to be individual requests for each of those cars?

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

If you would like to see a car reclassed using hte process.. aren't you allowed to asked it be run through it? though while runnign a car in teh process you also need (or atleast it would be nice) to give information about expected output. In the ITB mustang example I know what a full preped and well developed ITB Mustang does. There is a good example down here in the SE. Ron has done an excellent job with his car. I do not beleve we should use on track results but some tracks work in favor of the high tq/hp and relatively poor handling car and other tracks vice-versa.

[gran racing]

dismissing their comments with "it's a DC Region problem"

The issue most mentioned from a few folks who run at Summit use performance as an indicator to how a car should be classed. There are more tracks out there than Summit and a large variation in car prep and driver levels. Not a bad thing and in fact it's great. Fine, remove the locals who run there often (Tristian and Beth). Now is ITB o.k. at Summit?


If you would like to see a car reclassed using hte process.. aren't you allowed to asked it be run through it?

You can ask and hopefully it will happen eventually. Things in our club take a looooong time. While I don't want to see rash decisions, there were enough requests made a while ago which are (?) on the list to be discussed when the use of the process was approved. When that happened, there were requests made to make that list of cars to be reviewed published even if just here.

[JeffYoung]

Not to quibble but I don't think it is fair to say outcomes are unimportant. We use them as a gut check to make sure something is not off (a motor making more power than expected, generally speaking).

I can tell you that I find the Process a relief. It allows us to get cars "close" on power to weight and then let folks have at it. I really don't want to, nor do I think the ITAC actually can, use things like aero, and gear ratios, etc. to balance cars.

In my view we are really in a sweet spot where a lot of chassis can win in R, S, A, B and C. And I think Jake, Kirk and Andy are the ones you really need to thank for that.


Jeff - as I understand it that has always been the goal of The Process. It took me a while to grasp the concept that outcomes are unimportant, and once I did I decided I'm really not a big fan of it. I am of the opinion (stop reading here Dr. K) that a group of intelligent, objective, dedicated people (like Josh, Andy, Jeff, Kirk, Jake, etc.) could use a hp/wt formula as a base, and then adjust weights based on observation & knowledge of each car's quirks, and get competition that is just as close (IMO closer) than The Process does. (Sorry again K - I told you to stop reading...).

I realize that would take a lot more work, and obviously would not be as blindly objective as The Process, so I can see where there is the attraction for the later. I've come to the conclusion, though, that it is impossible to develop a strictly formulaic process for classing cars that produces parity within the class.

[jjjanos]

Pantsguy, if you truly think we are doing things just to do them and "to hell with the rest of the class" then there is no point discussing this further.

What other conclusion should I draw? I'm told that even though the multiplier was known to be wrong, it's the multiplier - get over it. The biggest zealot for the weight-hp hard constraint says...


The key here - and a crucial aspect of the argument for not changing the base weight ratio in B - is that YOU ARE CORRECT with your second assertion. to the assertion that meeting the ratio is the goal and the actual outcomes don't matter.

Do I think the ITAC thinks imposing the incorrect ratio is good for the class? I certainly hope so. Do I think they'll do a thing about it if it turns out they are wrong? Nope -- both because nothing will move them off the holy ratio and because they won't be allowed to do it.


You are now to the point where you just want to argue for argument's sake without even a hint of doing anything constructive.

Well, I've been pretty consistent that IMO, the use of the 17 multiplier should be revisited. Just because you don't like my solution doesn't mean it isn't constructive. If it makes you happy, I accept that we've got our multipliers that have been written in stone. We're stuck with 17 for ITB and 18.84 for ITC. (And consistency says that, even as stupid as the 18.84 is, it needs to be used because new cars have been classified and some of them have been built.)


And no, the ITB world does not revolve around Summit Point.

Didn't say that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I implied that one out of every seven ITB entrants (so-far this year) makes it an important part of the ITB world.


The issue most mentioned from a few folks who run at Summit use performance as an indicator to how a car should be classed. There are more tracks out there than Summit and a large variation in car prep and driver levels. Not a bad thing and in fact it's great. Fine, remove the locals who run there often (Tristian and Beth). Now is ITB o.k. at Summit?

Apparently the train has left the station for the multipliers. I've been told that it is better to assume that all of the old regime cars in existence can lose weight than it is to add weights to the fewer number of new cars in existence.

Since the train has left the station, if the Eurotanks want to get their problem fixed and, most importantly are able to lose the weight, it's up to them.

Though, I think I will be looking at the ITB weights to see if anyone is underweight and needs to go up.

[JLawton]

“People can be divided into two classes: those who go ahead and do something, and those people who sit still and inquire, why wasn’t it done the other way?” Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Let me start by saying this isn’t pointed at a specific person or persons……. If you are offended by this post than it probably means it is directed at you!!

Bettencourt and I have this discussion all the time. I think 80% of the drivers at our level have no clue what it truly means to run a 10/10ths program. These people all think that they are the next Mario Andretti and think that if they’re not winning it’s because A) the other guy is cheating, or B ) their car is classed/speced wrong. Wake up and smell reality. Just because you rebuilt your engine doesn’t mean you deserve to win. Just because you’ve been racing for 5 years doesn’t mean you should be winning. Just because you bought the hot car that won last years ARRC doesn’t mean that you will.

Most people are fooling themselves. Like Dr Phil says, “Get real”.
- Do you really think because you built the engine that someone else who knows what they’re doing couldn’t get more power??
- Do you use a tire other than a Hoosier?
- Do you run your Hoosiers for more than 5 heat cycles? If you’re one of these that says you can get 10 before they fall off it’s because you’re not good enough to know when they fall off at 5. Then you need to work on your driving!!!!
- Do you rotate your tires after EVERY session.
- Do you take the tires off and bag them after every race?
- Do you dyno and tune your engine every year?
- If you’re running a stock ECU don’t even THINK about getting into this discussion.
- How many test days have you done this year?
- Do you run data acquisition?
- Do you nut and bolt the whole car after every race?
- Swap out parts before they break?
- Carry a butt load of spares to the track?
- Did I mention multiple test days??
- Are you running at the minimum weight?
- Have you received any personal coaching
- Are you lucky? Yes, luck does come into play. But the harder you work, the luckier you will get.
- Did I mention test days?? With new tires? ‘Cause you can’t test on crap tires…

And if you REALLY have done all the above things and are still not winning? Get another freakin’ car!!!!


And anyone that has been racing IT for more than 8 years knows that the equality of the competition is so much better than it was.

Over the years the ITAC members invested a lot of blood sweat and tears into the process. They truly have no ulterior motives so why are “we” so quick to criticize the work they do? Instead of criticizing, why not help out?

I know this won’t sink in with most of the people that this is pointed at………………. Whatever……….

<hopping off the soap box>


.

[JeffYoung]

Jeff, thank you.

Because what you post above is really what is driving this, in my personal opinion. This isn't about a power to weight multiplier.

What it is about is newer cars coming into a class with "new" technologies and levels of driver prep and skill, and the old guard not liking that.

So instead of looking at themselves, and their programs, they blame the system, or the Process or the set in stone power/weight number, or whatever.

And there is no real way to correct that. At all. Newer cars driven by younger driers with World Challenge level talent willing to spend money on new tires, and test days and ECU tuning and Data Acquisition are not things we can or should (in my opinion) be trying to balance on the ITAC.

I drive an old tech car. Yeah, it's got FI, but it has drum brakes and a live rear axle. Eventually, it will not be a front running car. I accept that. And the folks with ITB Volvos and 2002s from the 60s need to accept the same thing. You'll still have a place to race, and you'll still probably be somewhat competitive. But the day in the sun for TR8s and 240zs and Volvos and 2002s is rapidly coming to a close.

As it should be.

IT is not Prod. We don't want, I think, to look like Prod does with a bunch of fifties sports car still winning national championships. We are not a vintage class. We are a class for mostly modern cars.

I'm not in favoring of delisting or purposefully disadvantaging older cars, but the minute we become focused on ensuring that a 1970 Volvo 142 is 100% equal to a new Civic or Golf, we have lost. Unless you want IT to look like Prod does now. A valid viewpoint, just different than most membership I think.

Instead, we just need to get the power to weights close and let people race.

[gran racing]

We are a class for mostly modern cars.

:lol: Sorry but I couldn't help but chuckle as I peer over at a picture full of IT cars. (I'm not saying we should place emphasis on keeping old cars competitive at all costs.)

[rcc85]

We are not a vintage class. We are a class for mostly modern cars.




I'm not sure I agree with that, Jeff:). My last race (Pocono Double in May) had 8 ITB cars. They were a 1971 Volvo, 1969 Volvo, 1995 VW, 1973 BMW 2002, 1984 BMW 320i, 1986 VW, 1985 Dodge and a 1987 Honda CRX. The newest car was 16 years old! Take out the 1995 Golf and the next newest car is 24 years old!! Also, there is a 26 years spread between the oldest and newest cars in the field (part of the problem of trying to keep a level playing field).

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB 1985 Dodge Daytona

[rcc85]

Instead, we just need to get the power to weights close and let people race.


That, however, I agree with 100%

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[JeffYoung]

While I want to do nothing to "hurt" older cars (like mine), I'm not sure we want to do anything special to accomodate them. That was the point of my comment. I am 100% opposed to any delisting of cars, or moving the IT cutoff date (presently 1968) forward (even though over 20 years have passed since that date was set).

But I guess my more fundamental point is that tech has moved on. A drum braked, 4- speed, live rear axle, leaf spring car is going to have a hard time in IT no matter what we do. And I think that is fine.

Right now, the "majority" of cars in IT I would say have four wheel disc brakes, EFI and a five speed. That stretches a pretty good chunk of time, from around 1980 until the present.

The next tech leap, if we chose to take it, will be to allow performance enhancing ABS systems, traction control, turbos, AWD (in now already), superchargers, etc.

Eventualy, an 80s car with discs, a five speed and Bosch L-Jetronic is going to look pretty antiquated.

And that is in my opinion the way it should be.



I'm not sure I agree with that, Jeff:). My last race (Pocono Double in May) had 8 ITB cars. They were a 1971 Volvo, 1969 Volvo, 1995 VW, 1973 BMW 2002, 1984 BMW 320i, 1986 VW, 1985 Dodge and a 1987 Honda CRX. The newest car was 16 years old! Take out the 1995 Golf and the next newest car is 24 years old!! Also, there is a 26 years spread between the oldest and newest cars in the field (part of the problem of trying to keep a level playing field).

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB 1985 Dodge Daytona

[Knestis]

I'll gladly send my spreadsheet with 80+ ITB cars in it to anyone who PMs me their email.

And please, people - do not use the 1.3 multivalve B power multiplier as a stick to hit the Process with. It's political by-catch that has nothing to do with the way the most recent ITAC-developed Process is supposed to work.

Steve - I did read on and honestly, I totally understand. The irony is that the best outcome for the class is most likely to result from a system that doesn't use outcomes as input data. Where the "intelligent, objective, dedicated people" [sic] come to bear in the Process (as actually described in v.2.) is in the application of the factors that ARE variable. It is NOT as formulaic as some people think, even if it's more formulaic than some people want.

K

[JeffYoung]

This whole exercise should prove Kirk's point. We are being asked to look at relative competitiveness at a single track amongst a small subset of drivers -- and the quagmire of different prep levels and driver skill that entials -- and use those outcomes to influence how we set weights for the class as a whole.

I couldn't disagree with that approach more.

[lateapex911]

It was pretty damn clear to me when the newer cars appeared at Summit that they were classified incorrect when compared to the old regime cars.....

....but I saw what the newer cars did to some of the top-notch cars in the class. Cars that had fresh motors and well-developed, Cars driven by someone who had thousands of miles at Summit and who couldn't keep up with the newer cars for long.





I have to jump on this "proof of theory" statement. (I don't post this to brag, but to make a point)

I came to Summit having never been there before in an IT7 car. IT7 has been around at Summit for far longer than it has in New Negland, and a top rotary performance shop, complete with dyno, is on the same site. In fact, i heard rotaries running on the dyno the day I arrived.

So, it's safe to say that many many IT7 cars have run down that track over the years, and that there is certainly tuning talent RIGHT THERE.

I hoped to be respectable. I bought an assortment of good fresh tires, a data aq system, and a crew guy and went to work finding speed. (Dave Gran ran for the first time there that weekend and was doing the same thing as I as well)

I got a clean lap in qualifying and scored the pole, and was fortunate enough over the weekend to snag wins and a new track record.

But here's the thing: I did it in not a new model car introduced into the class, but the same model car...and did it over cars assumed to be top notch and driven well by guys with thousands of miles at the track.
And you know what? I KNOW I can go faster, with more testing and engineering.

I was there three weeks ago. i watched the ITB cars closely. I looked over the prep of them. Sorry to say, but the "old guard" cars looked to be (one broke down on grid) less than top notch. And the new guard, well, they looked clean and well prepped. yes, looks can be deceiving.

Then there's the Curran factor. Last weekend Eric Curran and I played a joke on Dave Gran. Eric had brought a big 'ole Vette to run on one of his non Pro weekend dates, but it failed sound miserably, so I told Dave he was going to jump in his Dads Volvo in ITB and start from the back for old times sake. Dave smiled, then frowned then feigned indifference.
Backstory: Dave runs right up front in ITB. Eric once jumped in his Dads car on a test and tune day at LRP and run a 1:02.7. (Solidly under the track record). In 5 or so laps. Seems like Eric in the Volvo is a rather stout combination.

Moral of the story: Claims of classes that need complete rejiggering because certain guys have troubles at one track should be taken with a shaker of salt.........

[lateapex911]

You're hearing grousing from DC region drivers because they have one of, if not the, strongest ITB fields. Maybe instead of dismissing their comments with "it's a DC Region problem", you should consider the possibility that since they regular race with 15 or more ITB cars, (as compared to places where a 15 car run group of multiple classes is viewed as huge), they might have a sense of what this could do to the class.

Sp what...there are a bunch of ITB cars. Whoopie.
it's ONE track, and a bunch of cars that used to all run together well, until some new folks came in with some pretty well sorted cars and upset the apple cart. (ITB track record got broken twice one weekend I was there by some guys who are pretty dedicated to their driving and builds) Happens all the time.
Time to do the homework and up the game.


The starting point of THE PROCESS is the problem -- equating HP:lb ratios. There's omitted variable problems all over the place... aero is omitted. Tire/wheel size is omitted. The actual performance gains from an IT build are too simplistic and changing it is too dependent on the better nature of man.


.
Dude, you want to talk about omitted stuff? We went on for hours...no...DAYS on the ITAC calls discussing those, and many more items.....
Tell you what.
Send me a spreadsheet describing the frontal sizes and cd ratios for all the 300 PLUS cars in the ITCS.
Now, add to that the differences caused by the differing wheels and tire combinations used in racing.
Then, please adjust those numbers to factor in the effects of airdams and splitters for each of the spec lines.

Now, once you've done that, can you describe a factor that should be applied to each model that can be used to add or subtract actual weight (in pounds, pleas), and keep in mind the ITAC will need to have that factor be derived from the long track and short track differences each model will produce.

Call us when you've done that, and you can then jump onto the tire/wheel numbers, the trans ratio numbers, and all the other stuff you have issues with.

Honestly, after reading your posts, it's pretty obvious that Improved Touring might not be the best place for you to play....

[gran racing]

Wait, so Eric was in on this too? Bastard! lol He would have put on a show and I was practicing my best blocking moves to keep him behind for at least a lap or two.

For those who aren't aware, typical front running ITB times at LRP are low 1:04s to mid 1:03s. The long standing track record set in 1996 is a 1:03.314. The day that Eric did the 1:02.7 with the 1971 Volvo was not an ideal cool power, grippy track day.

[dickita15]

i saw it, you were funny.

[jjjanos]

Moral of the story: Claims of classes that need complete rejiggering because certain guys have troubles at one track should be taken with a shaker of salt.........

I haven't said they need to be taken as Gospel. I said they need to be considered. The tone of those who sit in judgement has implied that they simply dismissed the comments.

I'm sorry, but by the very formula the ITAC uses, the newer cars were unquestionably overdogs. As someone who helped set some of these weights, you already should have been aware of that. When some cars use a multiplier of 17 and the existing cars are higher and, in some instances, as high as the low 20s, there's a problem. But hey, who gives a shit what 1 out of 7 ITB drivers might say.



Dude, you want to talk about omitted stuff? We went on for hours...no...DAYS on the ITAC calls discussing those, and many more items.....
Tell you what.
Send me a spreadsheet ...blah...blah...blah...blah....blah...


Oh... gee... I guess just because it's hard to get a precise factor for something omitted, that means not including it doesn't mean there is an omitted variable bias...

Oh, wait a minute... actually it still is an omitted variable bias.

If the goal is to have an exact factor, then yes, it is an insurmountable task. If the goal is to have a reasonable approximation that allows for some correction, then it is doable.

The new process is heralded at some bolt from heaven that gives the perfect weight for each car in each class --- well, bullshit. It gives an approximate weight if the definition of perfect is carrying a set amount of weight per unit of power. Nevermind that the unit of power is some estimate that, ultimately, is no different than just saying "this car needs to weigh 2250lbs because it has an advanced warp drive coil in it." THE PROCESS is still car classification by the Oracle at Delphi. The only difference is that the new priests have a set of tools to measure what the Oracle says and the old priests went by the seat of the pants.


Honestly, after reading your posts, it's pretty obvious that Improved Touring might not be the best place for you to play....

Thanks for your input.

[Knestis]

The ITAC opted for repeatable and imperfect, rather than easy-to-diddle, smoke-filled-room-friendly and imperfect, Jeff. EVERY SINGLE RESEARCH STUDY IN THE WORLD suffers from "omitted variable bias" because it's impossible to account for them all. We define our theory-to-be-tested, deal with the variables we think matter most to the outcome, state our assumptions about those we don't, and describe limitations to accompany our findings.

The signal-to-noise ratio gets completely unreasonable as more factors get considered, and ultimately the aero difference (for example) between a CRX and a Civic with the same engine is less than any of a huge number of factors that DRIVERS control, that contribute to the observed "measures" that you are using as output measures to judge how close the system got to "perfect competitive balance." Again - since you seem to have missed it - if Tristan and Jeff U. hadn't brought talent and preparation along with new cars to MARRS, it would look a hell of lot like perfect parity had been established. Lord knows the mystical MkIII Golf didn't automagically make me any lap records.

That some ITB cars are currently at 20:1 IS A HUGE PROBLEM, but it's solved by revisiting and re-specifying those cars. The (not so) Great Realignment only attended to cars that were thought to be popular AND out of whack relative to the "bogie" models in the class. A huge majority of ITB cars were not touched, and certainly should be.

K

[lateapex911]

The new process is heralded at some bolt from heaven that gives the perfect weight for each car in each class --- well, bullshit. .

Ummm, bullshit right back atcha.

Clearly, you've chosen to ignore the millions of times Andy (not to mention myself, Kirk, Jeff, and Josh ) have gone on and on and on about how it's NOT perfect, and that it's NOT about balancing cars on the head of a pin.
It IS about (as Kirk states) removing the back room diddling, creating consistency, and regulating the subjective aspects.

But, given 300 plus cars, NOBODY on the ITAC has EVER said it was a bolt from heaven and resulted in perfect weight for every (or ANY car).

You may have your points, but putting words in others mouths and fabricating ideas and positions isn't a great way to get them across.

[gran racing]

the newer cars were unquestionably overdogs.

Just so I'm not missing something here, what are these newer cars you're talking about?

The Golf III & Iv - agreed that was an intersting classification but Kirk worked to get weight added to the car he drives. I think it's pretty close now.

The Accord - lets not forget this was an ITB car until Randy Pobst drove the snot out of it and on track performance was used to push it into ITA. The stupid arse multivalve BS factor wasn't taken into consideration for that car (which is crap anyways) but ITCS request # 4245 is pending on that. Along with request # 4429 specific to the whole B & C multivalve auto 30% adder.

[JeffYoung]

You're not missing anything, but Pants is.

Those cars were brought into the class at 17:1 which was the accepted power to weight multiplier for ITB -- a power to weight multiplier derived from the front running ITB car at the time.

Come to find out, that car -- the Volvo -- may have been cheated up.

But the fact remains that even the old cars when processed under 17:1 all seem to either be close to their spec weight already, or loss some weight (but not enough to make race weigh unacheivable -- see Gary L.'s post above).

[Ron Earp]

That some ITB cars are currently at 20:1 IS A HUGE PROBLEM, but it's solved by revisiting and re-specifying those cars. The (not so) Great Realignment only attended to cars that were thought to be popular AND out of whack relative to the "bogie" models in the class. A huge majority of ITB cars were not touched, and certainly should be.

K

ITB talk has seemingly monopolized the ITAC for years. Wouldn't it be a simple spreadsheet exercise to run all the ITB cars through the current process and put the weights in the GCR, done deal? Seems like that would solve all the problems and level ITB once and for all.

[Chip42]

Ron, the variety of tech and ages of the cars mean that reliable, equated, published information for them is not as easily available as would be needed to run a simple spreadsheet analysis. SAE gross, SAE net, DIN, SAE certified, pre and post clean air act and various other emissions laws coming into play, a more significant impact of "california emissions" creating oddball parts that meet the ITCS production requirements, with leaded fuel and without, carbs, multiport and throttle body injection, both batch and sequential, 2/3/4 valve designs (which matters more to some than to others) RWD beam, RWD indi, FWD, mid engined, and manufacturers from at least 6 different countries.

it's a more diverse class than anything else in the ITCS. add in the stupid 30% BS, the great realignment being mostly an ITA/S thing and leaving the bulk of ITB as pre-process classifications, later-revealed cheaters used to establish bogey numbers resulting in some existing cars becoming overweight by process, and the number of years many "established" cars have been running in the class who feel liek they got the short end, and you have a lot to deal with on the political side, too.

I think a spreadsheet SHOULD be run, but I think verfiable stock numbers and mixed perceptions of a full IT build effort to define "known power potential" will still create unrest.

fun!

oh and we should totally fix the damned MR2!!! :p:dead_horse:

[JeffYoung]

It would be tough, no doubt.

I always favored the Josh solution. We process those cars we know are popular and running. We remove the listed weight from a lot of the old oddballs, and only process them if someone asks that a weight be assigned.

And then we dig into the issues Chip lists above.....

While ITB is a very diverse class in the rulebook, with lots of old and new cars, on track it's not that different from A or S. There's probably 5-6 chassis that run up front right now, and maybe 15-20 total actually being run.

[gran racing]

I know that ITB has received a large amount of attention by the ITAC. It is tough to comprehend this though since few changes in ITB have been actually made. I also recognize the concern with not screwing up the class (minus Charlie and jjjanos' perception on that).

With the many cars that were previously looked at and put through the process, do you foresee many being announced in the near future?

Is that 30% multivalve deal going to remain in effect for B & C?

I'd be curious to hear some updates on what's been going on and future plans for the ITAC.

[JeffYoung]

Sure. Since Josh left, we've not been as good with posting updates as we should be (my fault).

I'd say in general my perception of where we ar is:

1. Trying to correct some of the problem children in B primarily, and other classes. I can tell you the Volvos have taken an inordinate amount of time because of the fact that models were collapsed on lines that shouldn't have been, the sketchy information on actual legal builds, etc.

I actually think we've made a lot of progress on this, and have classed/reclassed a ton of cars in the last few months.

2. Work through a variety of rules requests.

3. Start initial discussions on "what is next for IT." A new class about ITR? Turbos? Etc.

But the for the most part, I think you are going to see (I hope) a period of rules stability after a lot of change. I think (personally) we need the cooling off period in that regard.

The 30% issue probably will not change. I personally disagree with it, but others do not and I understand the premise behind their position -- that multi-valve architecture in ITB means those engines are more likely to see more gains.

I think it is less of an issue though than it appears to be. We have the ability to move off of the 30% if we have enough evidence to the contrary, like we did with the MR2. I know there is disagreement over the fact that we only moved 5%, but we did move.

I know that ITB has received a large amount of attention by the ITAC. It is tough to comprehend this though since few changes in ITB have been actually made. I also recognize the concern with not screwing up the class (minus Charlie and jjjanos' perception on that).

With the many cars that were previously looked at and put through the process, do you foresee many being announced in the near future?

Is that 30% multivalve deal going to remain in effect for B & C?

I'd be curious to hear some updates on what's been going on and future plans for the ITAC.

[StephenB]

3. Start initial discussions on "what is next for IT." A new class about ITR? Turbos? Etc.



NO NO NO,

Lets fix our current classes before adding more workload to the ITAC. Lets fix ITB (and possibly ITC) then look at adding classes. This ITB issue has been going on for years and should be put to bed once and for all. Come out with a solid plan and make it happen. If your going to reclass them all then do it, if your going to take the weights out of the GCR until someone submits a request lets do it. Tell us all what the exact plan is through fasttrack, stick to it, and lets move on.

I personally still have a perfectly good ITB Audi in the trailer waiting for an engine which depends on what the new weights will be on the other Audi Engines that didn't get the weight brake a few months ago. I submitted a letter back then.

Stephen

[Knestis]

ITB talk has seemingly monopolized the ITAC for years. Wouldn't it be a simple spreadsheet exercise to run all the ITB cars through the current process and put the weights in the GCR, done deal? Seems like that would solve all the problems and level ITB once and for all.

For historical perspective, the ITAC was asked by our CRB liaison about the viability of an ITB do-over, and to share the spreadsheet that I worked on (and sent to a couple of you).

That was immediately before the Last Great Schism and in hindsight, I have a sneaky suspicion that the message that went with it - that it was *NOT* a formulaic, "this is the weights we'll recommend" thing - was lost in translation; someone looked at the big changes resulting from the default power multiplier; and it contributed to the seizing up of the system.

On reflection, I favor the "do what needs doing first" model of tackling the problem, as Jeff defines it. It should just get done and I agree with Stephen that we shouldn't get distracted by shiny new toys until the homework is done on B.

KK

[tnord]

the work on IT*next* has been 100% done by me on my own time outside of normal ITAC operation.

ITB has seen more movement than you think....or care to see. CRX/like was fixed, VW solid axle issue was fixed, volvo is nearly done, 30% has been discussed, we waded through the charlie muck about redoing the whole damn thing, accord issue is out there.....

really....in my 6mos, i bet 80% of the discussion on calls is around ITB, so everybody just calm down about nothing happening.

[jjjanos]

The ITAC opted for repeatable and imperfect, rather than easy-to-diddle, smoke-filled-room-friendly and imperfect, Jeff. EVERY SINGLE RESEARCH STUDY IN THE WORLD suffers from "omitted variable bias" because it's impossible to account for them all. We define our theory-to-be-tested, deal with the variables we think matter most to the outcome, state our assumptions about those we don't, and describe limitations to accompany our findings.

I'm aware of that. When forecasting the probability of rain, there is a difference, however, between omitting the butterfly in India and omitting a falling barometer. Nor does one need to resort to quantum mechanics when Copernican equations work well for most applications.

I would dispute that in all instances, aero differences are simply noise. There are 50 lb adjusters that, for the most part, are for observable attributes of cars. The weight adjustment for moving from a 1.25 to 1.2 gain on a 100HP car is 85 pounds and the trigger on that switch is subjective. I fail to see why no allowance is made for a similarly subjective determination regarding a car that is a brick or one that creates a vacuum beneath it.

Moreover, if the IT-goes-National faction gets its way, there will be people doing those mental adjustments. There will be a car that has such an advantage, despite Jehovah coming down and saying "yep, you got the HP correct on that engine." The process has no method of correcting "the car to have" problem. Then, some might not see that as a problem as long as the HP:weight ratio is correct.

[lateapex911]

I would dispute that in all instances, aero differences are simply noise. There are 50 lb adjusters that, for the most part, are for observable attributes of cars. The weight adjustment for moving from a 1.25 to 1.2 gain on a 100HP car is 85 pounds and the trigger on that switch is subjective. I fail to see why no allowance is made for a similarly subjective determination regarding a car that is a brick or one that creates a vacuum beneath it.

Back in the day ...on this site, we were all bitching about the whole classign structure (or lack thereof) in IT. And we came up with solutions. The things we noodled here eventually became the methods that currently are in place. There were discussions and even arguments but the direction was positive and productive.
So, in the same vein, I'd suggest that you flesh out your aero policy. How will that 50lbs be doled out?
You are the guy on the ITAC who has been charged with studying the aero aspect and recommending a procedure that will become part of the Process.
Show us....


Moreover, if the IT-goes-National faction gets its way, there will be people doing those mental adjustments.

There are people doing those adjustments NOW, LOL. But IT aint going national anytime soon.....
That load got put in the STO, STU and STL boats and has left the dock.

[JLawton]

3. Start initial discussions on "what is next for IT." A new class about ITR? Turbos? Etc.




Hmmmmmmmm. Forced induction Mini Cooper??

[Knestis]

Hmmmmmmmm. Forced induction Mini Cooper??

See the conversation re: V8s. I don't think ITX will have any choice but to address the question of forced induction.

K

[tnord]

See the conversation re: V8s. I don't think ITX will have any choice but to address the question of forced induction.

K

it's part of my plan.

[jjjanos]

You're not missing anything, but Pants is.

Reading comprehension problem today? He asked what cars were brought in as over dogs.


Those cars were brought into the class at 17:1...

But the fact remains that even the old cars when processed under 17:1 all seem to either be close to their spec weight already, or loss some weight (but not enough to make race weigh unacheivable -- see Gary L.'s post above).

You've answered your own question. If you bring in someone at 17:1 and someone else is stuck at 18:1, 19:1 or even higher, then you've created an over dog and the folks driving the cars with extra weight are going to say take weight off me and add weight to them. It doesn't matter if they are able to lose the weight to get to 17:1... they weren't allowed to do that.



So, in the same vein, I'd suggest that you flesh out your aero policy. How will that 50lbs be doled out?
You are the guy on the ITAC who has been charged with studying the aero aspect and recommending a procedure that will become part of the Process.
Show us....

How about with the ITAC using the same confidence procedure as with IT trim gain? E.g. The ITC Civic versus the ITC CRX... same weights but not the same car. ONE car is a brick the other isn't. Is there a strong enough belief that one car suffers because of this? If so, one of the cars is at the wrong weight.

It isn't perfect. It isn't precise. It is messy. It does allow for adjusting weight.

[lateapex911]

How about with the ITAC using the same confidence procedure as with IT trim gain? E.g. The ITC Civic versus the ITC CRX... same weights but not the same car. ONE car is a brick the other isn't. Is there a strong enough belief that one car suffers because of this? If so, one of the cars is at the wrong weight.

It isn't perfect. It isn't precise. It is messy. It does allow for adjusting weight.

The ITAC refused to move off a 25% factor for the MR2 when years of dyno plots show that even cammed and compressioned up versions don't hit 25%, and you expect them to agree on aero!?!?!?!

Ooooh boy, thanks for the laugh, pants, that was a good one!!!

Tell me, I'm driving my pick up down the highway. Should I lower the tailgate for better gas mileage?

[JeffYoung]

No, they were not intentionally brought in as overdogs. They came in at 17:1 and "lined up" with what the ITAC thought the Volvo made power to weight.

See Gary L's note above on the Volvo. Using real numbers the Volvo isn't that far off 17:1 anyway, nor is the 2002. I am pretty sure you've seen Charlie's chart and you should be aware of this.

We aren't going to include aero or pretty much anything else in the Process at this point. We've debated the factors that we think we should use, and those that are too hard for this committee to use, and settled on what is in the Ops Manual.


Reading comprehension problem today? He asked what cars were brought in as over dogs.



You've answered your own question. If you bring in someone at 17:1 and someone else is stuck at 18:1, 19:1 or even higher, then you've created an over dog and the folks driving the cars with extra weight are going to say take weight off me and add weight to them. It doesn't matter if they are able to lose the weight to get to 17:1... they weren't allowed to do that.



How about with the ITAC using the same confidence procedure as with IT trim gain? E.g. The ITC Civic versus the ITC CRX... same weights but not the same car. ONE car is a brick the other isn't. Is there a strong enough belief that one car suffers because of this? If so, one of the cars is at the wrong weight.

It isn't perfect. It isn't precise. It is messy. It does allow for adjusting weight.

[gran racing]

He asked what cars were brought in as over dogs.

The question of what the new ITB cars were brought in was largely directed to you jjjanos. Which cars do you see that have been added that are overdogs?

Sorry, but what is your first name? Just tired of typing jjjanos.

[Robbie]

Reading comprehension problem today? He asked what cars were brought in as over dogs.



You've answered your own question. If you bring in someone at 17:1 and someone else is stuck at 18:1, 19:1 or even higher, then you've created an over dog and the folks driving the cars with extra weight are going to say take weight off me and add weight to them. It doesn't matter if they are able to lose the weight to get to 17:1... they weren't allowed to do that.



How about with the ITAC using the same confidence procedure as with IT trim gain? E.g. The ITC Civic versus the ITC CRX... same weights but not the same car. ONE car is a brick the other isn't. Is there a strong enough belief that one car suffers because of this? If so, one of the cars is at the wrong weight.

It isn't perfect. It isn't precise. It is messy. It does allow for adjusting weight.

If someone says that they are overweight, then they need to write in and provide good evidence that they are very close to a 10/10's engine build to show that their car needs to lose weight. The impetus has and always will be on the owners of specific cars to prove to the ITAC that their car is overweight. It is not the ITAC's job to be an expert on every single car on the IT spec sheet. And from my limited time viewing their progress, they're willing to listen and use the process to get a car in the ballpark.

[gran racing]

Robbie, I'd agree with you if someone is trying to prove that the process is failing their car (such as potentially the MR2) but anyone should be able to request that a car be re-run through the process without jumping through hoops.

[erlrich]

I think what this all boils down to, and some people are obviously having a hard time reconciling, is this: there is a new system in place for classifying cars, that is more consistent, better defined, and more repeatable. The results it produces may or may not be better (or may actually be worse) than the results produced under the old system(s), but nobody ever promised they would be. It is what it is, like it or not.

Also, some cars may have been left behind, and not reclassified using the new process. It sounds to me like the ITAC is willing to rectify that problem if people are willing to write in? Correct me if I'm wrong there.

Bottom line: there will without a doubt still be the 'car(s) to have' in each class, and where I think some noses are getting out of joint is that what used to be the car(s) to have may not still be. I think at least with the current rule set we can now figure out what the top cars are, and they should stay that way for a while (unlike SS...).

[jjjanos]

No, they were not intentionally brought in as overdogs. They came in at 17:1 and "lined up" with what the ITAC thought the Volvo made power to weight.

I'm sorry... where did I say the cars were brought in intentionally as overdogs? I said the cars were brought in as overdogs compared to the cars whose GCR weights gave them ratios of 18, 19 or higher.


We aren't going to include aero or pretty much anything else in the Process at this point. We've debated the factors that we think we should use, and those that are too hard for this committee to use, and settled on what is in the Ops Manual.

Thank you for restating the obvious. I'm aware of The Process.

[gran racing]

You still never answered the question as to which cars you are referring to as over dogs. :rolleyes:

[Robbie]

Robbie, I'd agree with you if someone is trying to prove that the process is failing their car (such as potentially the MR2) but anyone should be able to request that a car be re-run through the process without jumping through hoops.

If it hasn't been run through the process, then you can request it with no hoops to jump through.

[lateapex911]

higher.



Thank you for restating the obvious. I'm aware of The Process.

Thank you for your usual snooty, holier than thou attitude. !2 yr old girls are in awe.

[jjjanos]

You still never answered the question as to which cars you are referring to as over dogs. :rolleyes:

I'd say a good place to start would be the Kirk/Tristan/Martin version of the Golf.


Thank you for your usual snooty, holier than thou attitude. !2 yr old girls are in awe.

It was a nicer reply than what was deserved. The question was what could/should have been done. It wasn't what was done.

Great, the ITAC thinks making such adjustments is too difficult for that iteration of the ITAC. Fine. Don't make any. Instead, they made certain that such adjustments could never be made.

[rcc85]

Don't forget that there are potential overdogs that were already in ITB at less than 17 to 1. The Suzuki Swift, the Alfas, the Geos, the Isuzu Stylus and maybe others.

If someone showed up at Summit Point with a 10/10ths Geo Storm and lowered the lap record, what would the reaction be?

Just askin'...


Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[gran racing]

Bob, that just means that we need to submit requests for those cars to be reviewed. Why not be proactive about this instead of just waiting for it to happen then deal with it then?

[lateapex911]

the Firearrow is low hanging fruit in that regard. If that car were to be developed seriously, and parts were available for it, it has the numbers to be stout.

[quadzjr]

just curious.. i know how I calculate it, but as a check to see if the 17:1 is correct are we using wheel hp or flywheel hp? I personally have always used wheel hp. I was recently talking to a gentalman that spent alot of time on his firehawk MR2. When he told me he got 122 hp I was shocked and amazed! Then I found it that was on an engine dyno.. whp numbers was in the 104 range.

[JeffYoung]

It's flywheel. We start with the stock flywheel hp number and apply the "expected gain" multiplier to that.

So assuming the old cars get a weight break that gets them to 17:1, and that race weight is achievable, that should be sufficient right? And will end a lot of the complaining in this thread?

Bob, right now, our procedure is to review the weight on any car for which we get a request. I agree there are probably some cars in ITB that right now have much better power/weight than 17:1. If you guys want us to take a look at them (or even better simply remove the weight until someone writes in and wants us to run it through the Process and assign it a weight) just write a letter.

[rcc85]

My comment was meant to point out that, while new cars were brought into ITB at 17 to 1, (and that was a more favorable power to weight ratio than some of the cars in the class) it was also a higher power to weight ratio than other cars in the class.

I'm not sure that anyone can complain about new cars coming into ITB at 17 to 1 when there were already cars in the class in the 15 or 16 to 1 range. I also don't think that any of the new cars can be tagged as "overdogs" for that reason.

I would like to see the outliers run through the process though. A separate letter for each car, right?



Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

P.S. Jake: I think the Fire Arrow has potential, but I think it's close to 17 to 1 now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

when there were already cars in the class in the 15 or 16 to 1 range.

Examples with numbers?

[jjjanos]

Examples with numbers?

Citing Kirk's spreadsheet:

Geo Storm: HP 130 x 1.25 x 17= 2762.5 - 55.3 = 2707.3, round to: 2705 GCR = 2380 or 325 pounds too light. Weight/HP = 15

Geo Prism: HP 130 x 1.25 x 17= 2762.5 - 55.3 = 2707.3, round to: 2705 GCR = 2455 or 250 pounds too light. Weight/HP = 15.4

Suzuki Swift: HP 100 x 1.25 x 17 = 2125 - 42.5 = 2082.5 round to: 2085 GCR = 1895 or 190 pounds light. Weight/HP = 15.5

[rcc85]

Suzuki Swift GTi: 100 stock hp @ 1895 lbs
Geo Storm GSi: 130 stock hp @ 2380 lbs.
Geo Prizm GSi: 130 stock hp @ 2455 lbs.
Isuzu Stylus XS: 125 stock hp @ 2430 lbs.
Alfa Romeo GTV2000: 130 stock hp @ 2410 lbs

Those are the obvious (to me) ones.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[quadzjr]

for a car to be an overdog, doesn't it first have to be campaigned?

i know of a few swifts, but the GSI and the alfa I haven't heard of any.

[JeffYoung]

Bob's point is a valid one which is that if there are cars that obviously have far better power/weights than existing cars, that could be trouble. Someone could build one and be very disruptive before it could be caught and "fixed."

The issue of course is what gain will these cars make and are the stock hp numbers correct. That Alfa number looks like a gross hp number rather than net and may be way high. Just another reason to take the weights off the spec line for now until someone actually asks for it to be Processed.

Assuming a 25% gain (is that motor 16v?) the Swift looks like it is 200 lbs off or so.

Assuming a 30% gain and it is 270 or so.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes, I thought there were more than the obvious. The Geo's are ITA cars.

(on edit - meaning they SHOULD be ITA cars)

[JeffYoung]

Given that stock power level, agreed.

Is the Swift GTi a 16 valve?


Yes, I thought there were more than the obvious. The Geo's are ITA cars.

(on edit - meaning they SHOULD be ITA cars)

[Knestis]

Which takes us full circle back to the "comprehensive do-over of B" idea that we talked about with the CRB before the schism. If I'd had a barn fully of Fire Arrows I would have built one by now, and I have *zero* doubt that with the same effort we've put into Pablo, it would be a killer.

K

[gran racing]

The more I think about it, the more I really believe the ITAC should remove the weights from cars not being campaigned and run some of these cars through the process.


Someone could build one and be very disruptive before it could be caught and "fixed."

Which stinks for the person who was smart, looked at the classifications and built based upon the rules. Yes, we want a level playing ground but a person might accept the warts of racing a Geo (heck, the fact they'd be racing a Geo is enough lol) because it's potential. Oh wait, so now someone built one and it's doing well. Guess what.


for a car to be an overdog, doesn't it first have to be campaigned?

Potential to be an overdog. Nip it in the bud. No one drives it now or the ITAC doesn't feel it will be built soon? Like Jeff said, remove the weight and wait for the request.

Then if a request comes in for one of these cars, it's equally important that the classification request is processed quickly.

[JeffYoung]

Agree 100%. This needs to be fixed before someone DOES build a killer ITB Geo based on the existing weight, and then gets slammed with 300 lbs in weight or a move to A.


The more I think about it, the more I really believe the ITAC should remove the weights from cars not being campaigned and run some of these cars through the process.



Which stinks for the person who was smart, looked at the classifications and built based upon the rules. Yes, we want a level playing ground but a person might accept the warts of racing a Geo (heck, the fact they'd be racing a Geo is enough lol) because it's potential. Oh wait, so now someone built one and it's doing well. Guess what.



Potential to be an overdog. Nip it in the bud. No one drives it now or the ITAC doesn't feel it will be built soon? Like Jeff said, remove the weight and wait for the request.

Then if a request comes in for one of these cars, it's equally important that the classification request is processed quickly.

[gran racing]

Since we rely on HP rating for the process, why isn't that listed in the GCR where IT cars are classed?

[preparedcivic]

Given that stock power level, agreed.

Is the Swift GTi a 16 valve?

Yep; 1.3l with a twin cam 4 valve per cylinder head.

[Knestis]

...but PLEASE - can we resolve the stupid 1.3 16v-in-B idea BEFORE we make any fixes? We know that's a political, vestigial holdover from some era long past. Nobody who was instrumental in designing the Process - I don't think, anyway - believes it's the correct thing for the class. If we correct issues with a system that's known to have an issue, we're just chasing our tails.

K

[tnord]

1) come to a conclusion on whether or not a 30% multivalve adder is appropriate in B and C
2) "fix" listings such as the ITB CRX, Swift, etc in an expedient manner

these are mutually exclusive events in my eyes. decide which one you want.

[JeffYoung]

I hate to type it/say it, but I doubt the 1.3 will be changed.

[Knestis]

1) come to a conclusion on whether or not a 30% multivalve adder is appropriate in B and C
2) "fix" listings such as the ITB CRX, Swift, etc in an expedient manner

these are mutually exclusive events in my eyes. decide which one you want.

That makes it sound like a minority of the ITAC is of the belief that the 30% blanket multiplier is wrong...?

K

[gran racing]

I think the 30% multivalve B & C only default is such a dumb thing and demonstrates the wonderful political aspects of IT that still exist. I suppose it's about concesions and getting something that kinda works? The ITAC already has the tools to use a higher percentage then the default 25% if deemed the case. Trying to disprove a negative (the 30% default) is so much harder.

[tnord]

think bigger picture kirk.

i admit i don't know the details of every listing that has/should have/should not have 30% applied to it currently, but i see a pretty good, competitive environment in ITB right now as is. sure a couple little things need to be tweaked like adding the 50lbs to the golf, sorting out the volvo, and putting some weight on the accord......but none of those changes fly in the face of what i've seen on track. so it "makes sense."

taking off the 30% and lowering the weight of *i think* vehicles like the underwood and ruck civic....that's tougher to swallow.

as always, things like this have to be thought about in the context of every vehicle, not just the one some dude in WDCR owns.....which hardly anyone ever does.

[tnord]

I think the 30% multivalve B & C only default is such a dumb thing and demonstrates the wonderful political aspects of IT that still exist.

politics how? i sure as shit don't care about anyone specific or any particular vehicle in ITB. Jeff undoubtedly doesn't either.

do you REALLY think we're playing favorites over here or are you just mudslinging to try and force our hand?

[gran racing]

taking offthe 30% and lowering the weight of *i think* vehicles like the underwood and ruck civic....that's tougher to swallow.

With the way the process is written without the default multivalve adder, that could and most likely should still happen. The ITAC responsiblity should be to take a look at potential power gains, and go from there. That's how the process should work.


politics how? i sure as shit don't care about anyone specific or any particular vehicle in ITB. Jeff undoubtedly doesn't either.

I absolutely believe politics impacts the IT category. Unfortunately I think that might just be a nature of the racing beast. I never said that you or Jeff were directly involved. I'm actually really happy both of you are on the ITAC. As we've seen, the political influences and issues might not even be sourced from within the ITAC.

[Chip42]

th
taking off the 30% and lowering the weight of *i think* vehicles like the underwood and ruck civic....

Both are FWD, 16V, SOHC, 1.5L (different intake and EFI setup)

Current process would yield:
The "Underwood" 88-91 Civic DX (D15B2)= 92hp*1.3*0.98*17 = 1992.5 lbs (2110 GCR, or 37.7% adder)
The "Ruck" 92-95 Civic EG DX (D15B7) = 102hp*1.3*0.98*17 = 2209.1 lbs (2345 GCR, or 38.0% adder)

so these two are already processed using "known" hp - and judging from the 2010 ARRC I'd say they are pretty close, at least to each other.

I chalenge anyone to find a multi-valve car running in ITB that was processed with 130% that hits that number. I can think of 125% cars that need to go up, and a lot fo 130% cars that should go down, at least until information shows otherwise.

how about getting rid of the 130% for multivalve cars rule, and continuing to use the process as written otherwise. seems like it'd work just fine.

then "fix" the cars that were processed at 130% blindly, and the old cars that have never been processed, as requested. doesn't seem to be that large of a chore.

[lateapex911]

so these two are already processed using "known" hp - and judging from the 2010 ARRC I'd say they are pretty close, at least to each other.

I chalenge anyone to find a multi-valve car running in ITB that was processed with 130% that hits that number. I can think of 125% cars that need to go up, and a lot fo 130% cars that should go down, at least until information shows otherwise.

how about getting rid of the 130% for multivalve cars rule, and continuing to use the process as written otherwise. seems like it'd work just fine.

then "fix" the cars that were processed at 130% blindly, and the old cars that have never been processed, are delisted (after an appropriate announcement period to find any stragglers), then reprocessed should they be requested. doesn't seem to be that large of a chore.

Nobody in their right mind can see a logical and defensible reason for the ridiculous 30% multivalve in ITB factor. Travis, Dave Gran says it's political, because, sorry to be blunt, he knows where it originated, which was a "deal" to allow multivalve cars in ITB. That's from before your time, but I heard that phrase used as the reasoning in an ITAC con call. Sorry, but that's the bottom line truth, and if that isn't 'political', well then i don't know what is.

You are on the inside Travis, and you're one of the few that speak to a limited nature in public regarding ITAC affairs, so we are really in the dark as to how the ITAC has defended holding the ground on the 'deal'. Perhaps it's a few guys internally convincing fence sitters, or perhaps it's pressure form other SCCA boards, such as the CRB.
Bottom like is the membership sees it, thinks it's stupid, and it hurts the credibility of the body since nobody can defend it reasonably.

Chip the only "issue" I see with your plan is that the ITACs current standards for accepting 'known power' are very much more strict, and should the 30% multivalve factor get dumped, those cars might get lumped into the "all at 25%" pile, should somebody decide to be difficult and play the 'all or nothing' game. That's a problem I'd like to get to though....

[lateapex911]

think bigger picture kirk.

i admit i don't know the details of every listing that has/should have/should not have 30% applied to it currently, but i see a pretty good, competitive environment in ITB right now as is. sure a couple little things need to be tweaked like adding the 50lbs to the golf, sorting out the volvo, and putting some weight on the accord......but none of those changes fly in the face of what i've seen on track. so it "makes sense."

taking off the 30% and lowering the weight of *i think* vehicles like the underwood and ruck civic....that's tougher to swallow.

as always, things like this have to be thought about in the context of every vehicle, .....which hardly anyone ever does.

Chip hit the nail on the head regarding the knowh hp aspects of the Civics. leave 'em alone. problem solved there.

But I LOVE the fact that YOU are telling Kirk, the KING of the big picture thinking society that he needs to be more broad minded, and THEN you use "Looks good to me on track, just needs a tweak here and there" as your justification.
An all time classic post there, LOL.

[Knestis]

EDIT - Thanks, Jake.

The Ruck ('92-95) and Underwood ('88-91) generations of Civic were run through the process applying ITAC members' confidence on an alternate (OTHER THAN 1.25) power multiplier, based on evidence collected - both at 1.35, accounting for rounding in the Chipster's math. They were done in June 2009 and November 2008, respectively, so are "current" per the Process v.2 (or very near thereabouts, given when the earlier one was done). In fact, the '88-91 DX was the poster child for "how crappy back-room deals work," so was the catalyst for busting the internal jam in the ITAC's application of a consistent system so we could re-do it.

It's SUPER important to refer to the internal documentation of when listings were made before considering changes, Travis. You're making broad policy decisions on specific examples about which you do not understand the history.

And so far as I know, the ONLY "multivalve" ITB car that's had the "standard" 1.3 multiplier applied as a default is the Toyota. Any car that has been done per the actual Process since January 2008 should be as right as they are going to get. And before anyone squawks, the Toyota siblings were NOT done to the Process as it was codified internally by the ITAC. The 1.3 thing was imposed from the outside.

K

[tnord]

and thanks for illustrating exactly why my communication is limited these days.

if you actually were on the call, you'd know that it was ME grilling everyone else as to how the 30% came to be. it was ME who kept asking questions until i got an answer.

so i got the answer i expected.....but now what do you do? competition ON THE WHOLE in ITB is pretty damn good. so how do you go about fixing it? as long as the accord eventually gets the 30%, you add the weight onto the golf, and go through some of the older listings does that do it? do you get rid of it expecting a pile of letters requesting reprocessing? do you reprocess everything ahead of time? you can't just run through every listing at 25% blindly.....so now do you have to go gather a pile of data to justify changing what is already a pretty level playing field? or does the 30% work based on pure coincidence and timing of the evolution of multivalve cars and emissions equipment within a small window of model years that happen to fall into ITB?

i don't know what the answer is. but i know jeff wasn't on the call when it was discussed, and i don't think Josh was either. at that time all i lobbied for was that i wasn't comfortable coming to a conclusion on that big of an issue given the limited attendance.

so give me some credit. i DO know the history, i DO consider the big picture, i DO consider every solution i can think of regardless of my personal opinion, i DO use caution to not completely fuck up what we have, and i DO know what i'm doing.

[Knestis]

To clarify my "imposed from the outside" comment.

** The 1.3-multiplier-for-multivalve-B-and-C clause first appears in the ITAC Process appendix to the ITAC ops manual as a revision added in November 2010: "Specifically, all cars should be assumed to gain 25% above stock horsepower in IT trim, except that multivalve engines in ITB and ITC should be assumed to gain 30%."

** Process v.2 (published, internal ITAC documentation c.2009) does not include that language or anything like it, as it defaults to 1.25 unless the committee "confidence" process is invoked.

** The published internal "v.2007" Process does not codify the 1.3 multiplier for multivalve B and C cars, although it does say that the Committee should use "1.30 or 30% for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains."

** My copy of Darrin Jordan's "2005 Letter to the Board" that documents the (not-so) Great Realignment describes the following:

Multiply stock HP by the estimated percentage of HP gained with IT-prep.
ex: 1.20 or 20% for 2V Carbureted
1.25 or 25% for 2V FI cars or older ECU cars
1.30 or 30% for Multi-Valve FI cars or Modern ECU cars
1.35+ or 35%+ for V-Tech, Vanos/Double Vanos, or other engine designs known to have higher potential/gains

There was talk on at least one con call that a "deal" that multivalve engines would only be allowed in ITB if they were spec'd using 1.3 instead of the default, but that was a discussion of PRE-PROCESS practices.

To suggest that RE-imposing the intent of a 1.3 default for ITB and ITC cars based on architecture is going back to some official way that things were being done, is simply revisionist history to rationalize something that someone now wants to defend. I think, most likely, the MR2 spec weight.

Those of you who are new on the committee need to know if you are being played. SOMEONE needs to go back to the source of this addition - help, Josh? - and figure out where it came from and why.

Kirk (aka your friendly local IT historian)

EDIT for Travis - So what IS the answer?

[tnord]

no one is selling any revisionist history.

[JeffYoung]

To throw some of the "blame" back on the old ITAC (me included), when I first started I would say record keeping was spotty at best -- record keeping that might have helped keep shenanigans down. For example, I think some of the confidence decisions on the FWD deduct, and the use of Lapsim, were things that should have gotten just as much scrutiny outside the committee as the 30% "default" in B. But I'm just rehashing old ground and that's not productive.

My recollection is that pretty much from the start, there was a fear of multi-valve engines in ITB from some of the committee members. To be fair, I think there was also irrational "fear" of (a) the Renesis; (b) V8s; (c) in line sixes in general; (d) BMW in line sixes in particular and (e) anything with a Honda or Acura logo on the valve cover.

We worked through most of that but one thing that stuck and seemed to morph from a gut feeling about architecture into the Ops Manual was the 30% default in ITB.

I don't think anyone was being gamed when that happened. I just think there was a perception that multi valve architecture in ITB was unusual and would result in higher gains than non multivalve. My perception -- as someone who is not nearly as familiar with these cars as you guys -- was that this perception stemmed mainly from some of the gains seen on the 1.6 Honda motor in the ITA CRX, and in the "Giles" ITB Honda.

So it got codified, and now as Travis says - and he absolutely has, at least to me and from what I recall on the committee, been opposed to the 30% default -- we seem to be stuck with it.

And the decission is, what do we do that is best for the class? IF we consistently continue to process cars with it, and if we correctly apply the confidence factor, we should get most things right. I agree the MR2 is an exception, in my personal opinion, but that's the result the committee, using the process and the confidence analysis based on the data we had, reached.

[lateapex911]

and thanks for illustrating exactly why my communication is limited these days.

LOL, this is nothing compared to the shitstorm some of us (esp Andy ) took in the past over things like the ITS E36....I know you can handle it. ;)


if you actually were on the call, you'd know that it was ME grilling everyone else as to how the 30% came to be. it was ME who kept asking questions until i got an answer.

so i got the answer i expected.....Excellent.
So, what WAS the answer?


but now what do you do? competition ON THE WHOLE in ITB is pretty damn good. Be careful....you're invoking "on track performance", and you've criticized jjjjanos, et al for same....

so how do you go about fixing it? as long as the accord eventually gets the 30%, you add the weight onto the golf, and go through some of the older listings does that do it? do you get rid of it expecting a pile of letters requesting reprocessing? do you reprocess everything ahead of time? ....
As I said on the con calls discussing this years ago, it's gonna take some work, and contrary to what some of the guys felt, that's the job of the ITAC. Kirk went to a lot of trouble and compiled a ton of data...I made calls on certain cars and engines...it can be done.

Best method:
List the cars thought not to be raced in Fastrack and de-list them.
Do research on known problem children still racing.
Reprocess correctly, or move them to appropriate classes. Some will complain about regional "I don't like ITA in my under prepped Bammo Special, because the ITA guys are fast" issues, but se la vie.
Re-list (after reprocessing) any de-listed cars that come in with requests.

In the mean time, run the Process on whatever you get requests on.


i don't know what the answer is. but i know jeff wasn't on the call when it was discussed, and i don't think Josh was either. at that time all i lobbied for was that i wasn't comfortable coming to a conclusion on that big of an issue given the limited attendance. Thats fine. Appropriate attendance is key.


so give me some credit. i DO know the history, i DO consider the big picture, i DO consider every solution i can think of regardless of my personal opinion, i DO use caution to not completely fuck up what we have, and i DO know what i'm doing.The irony was you threw Kirk under the bus, LOL.

[tnord]

sure, i can handle it jake.....but it's not worth it.

[lateapex911]

My recollection is that pretty much from the start, there was a fear of multi-valve engines in ITB from some of the committee members. To be fair, I think there was also irrational "fear" of (a) the Renesis; (b) V8s; (c) in line sixes in general; (d) BMW in line sixes in particular and (e) anything with a Honda or Acura logo on the valve cover.

We worked through most of that but one thing that stuck and seemed to morph from a gut feeling about architecture into the Ops Manual was the 30% default in ITB.

I don't think anyone was being gamed when that happened.
You probably weren't on the con call (either you were traveling and in a spotty zone and had fallen off, or hadn't joined the ITAC yet, I can't remember), when some car was being processed for ITB, and the 30% reared it's head, and when questioned on the veracity of the factor, the answer was "Because thats the deal we made to allow multivalve cars into ITB!!!!!". Following conversation was heated, and I distinctly remember being surprised and asking about "The deal". And the answer was that back in the day (I guess just before my time or somehow I missed it originally) that some factions of the ITAC (and CRB?) didn't want multvalve cars in ITB because they didn't fit the nature of the class, and they were thought to be overdogs.

I just think there was a perception that multi valve architecture in ITB was unusual and would result in higher gains than non multivalve. My perception -- as someone who is not nearly as familiar with these cars as you guys -- was that this perception stemmed mainly from some of the gains seen on the 1.6 Honda motor in the ITA CRX, and in the "Giles" ITB Honda.Right, but ...and I said this at the time, it's ridiculous to assume that ALL multivalve cars will see the same gains...regardless of manufacturer, date produced, intake manifold, throttle body, etc, AND that they will ONLY see those gains when there is an ITB sticker on the side of them. ;)


So it got codified, and now as Travis says - and he absolutely has, at least to me and from what I recall on the committee, been opposed to the 30% default -- we seem to be stuck with it.

And the decission is, what do we do that is best for the class? IF we consistently continue to process cars with it, and if we correctly apply the confidence factor, we should get most things right. I agree the MR2 is an exception, in my personal opinion, but that's the result the committee, using the process and the confidence analysis based on the data we had, reached.

If the MR2 is an example of the committee using the PRocess and the confidence window, then I worry about: "IF we consistently continue to process cars with it, and if we correctly apply the confidence factor, we should get most things right."....because that car is the poster child for getting a raw deal....so, if that's the way the committee works I can't see other cars getting a better deal. Unless there is some interal bias about the MR2....

[Knestis]

To throw some of the "blame" back on the old ITAC (me included), when I first started I would say record keeping was spotty at best -- record keeping that might have helped keep shenanigans down. For example, I think some of the confidence decisions on the FWD deduct, and the use of Lapsim, were things that should have gotten just as much scrutiny outside the committee as the 30% "default" in B. ...

Before this misinformation grows legs, I've got a complete record of every recommendation and the math that led to it, from Feb 2008 to the end of my tenure on the committee. During the period of Version 2, between its documentation and the schism, records were even kept re: individual members' call and confidence on non-standard factors (e.g., the RX8).

There is no such thing as a "confidence decision" on the FWD deduction. We used Lapsim to arrive at our best assessments of what that deduction should be, based on anecdotal observations that lower-hp cars suffer less from FWD syndrome than do higher-hp cars. The resulting numbers are applied without judgement.

Beyond those minor issues, I think you're spot-on with your observations and inferences, Jeff. However, regarding...


...we seem to be stuck with it.

... the ITAC is only as stuck with it as they want to be. If a majority of that committee's members think it's the right thing to do, just say so. You all have the right - and the responsibility - to do what you think is best. However, nobody seems to be saying that. "Stuck with it" is not a ringing endorsement.

If on the other hand you are being told by someone else that it's non-negotiable, well - they are wrong because you all, again, are empowered to make whatever recommendations you think are best for the category. And if it's going to be an issue, those member-thingies out there deserve the right to know who's pushing the agenda so they can direct their lobbying power correctly.

On a different issue, thinking back I can recall conversation when I first started of the 1.3 multiplier, although on reflection I do NOT think it was in the context of application to only two classes, however.

K

[Chip42]

And so far as I know, the ONLY "multivalve" ITB car that's had the "standard" 1.3 multiplier applied as a default is the Toyota. Any car that has been done per the actual Process since January 2008 should be as right as they are going to get. And before anyone squawks, the Toyota siblings were NOT done to the Process as it was codified internally by the ITAC. The 1.3 thing was imposed from the outside.

K

Kirk - 130% car added after January 2008:
99-2000 Mazda Protege ES, (FP-DE) 122hp@6000
122*1.3*.98*17=2642.3 lbs., GCR 2645, added via Fastrack tech bulletin June 08. interestingly, the same issue has the MR2 move to ITB @ 2525# (130% weight) as a proposed change effective 1/1/09.
I can't think of any other new entries brought in under the 130% adder, but just to have all of the recent mentions in context, the 88-91 Civic DX ("Underwood" type) lost 130# 1/09 and the 92-95 ("Ruck" type) was moved from A to B 10/09 at its still current weight.

And in case its read that way, I was not trying to drag Travis or anyone else from the ITAC past/present/future into a fight. I just wanted to set the facts strait about the 2 cars Travis used in his example.

[JeffYoung]

I have to respectfully disagree with some of this. I'm sure you kept excellent notes, and I know that after a while Jake was appointed secretary to do so as well.

But all of that information is 'lost" as far as the current ITAC is concerned. It's not documented anywhere on our site, and we can't go and easily get any information about why anything was done in the past. And that hurts us honestly (and not blaming anyone). If you have that information and would be willing to share it so I can put it up on the board as a historical "look" at how cars were classed over time that would be a tremendous help.

I still personally have issues with how the FWD deduction was done, and absolutely believe we engaged in a "confidence type" vote on it. IN my opinion, we did very little investigation into how Lapsim worked and how it calculated a FWD penalty on lap times and then esentially voted our confidence on that numbers it spit out which became the basis for the FWD deduction. I'm not saying revisit that, but I am going to use it as an example of the slippery slope that adders and deducts can be.

When I say stuck with the 1.30 default, what I mean is we have it, it was agreed to, it's in the Ops Manual and we've been using it. Changing it now might be worse than just sticking with it. No one is forcing us to do anything at this point.




Before this misinformation grows legs, I've got a complete record of every recommendation and the math that led to it, from Feb 2008 to the end of my tenure on the committee. During the period of Version 2, between its documentation and the schism, records were even kept re: individual members' call and confidence on non-standard factors (e.g., the RX8).

There is no such thing as a "confidence decision" on the FWD deduction. We used Lapsim to arrive at our best assessments of what that deduction should be, based on anecdotal observations that lower-hp cars suffer less from FWD syndrome than do higher-hp cars. The resulting numbers are applied without judgement.

Beyond those minor issues, I think you're spot-on with your observations and inferences, Jeff. However, regarding...



... the ITAC is only as stuck with it as they want to be. If a majority of that committee's members think it's the right thing to do, just say so. You all have the right - and the responsibility - to do what you think is best. However, nobody seems to be saying that. "Stuck with it" is not a ringing endorsement.

If on the other hand you are being told by someone else that it's non-negotiable, well - they are wrong because you all, again, are empowered to make whatever recommendations you think are best for the category. And if it's going to be an issue, those member-thingies out there deserve the right to know who's pushing the agenda so they can direct their lobbying power correctly.

On a different issue, thinking back I can recall conversation when I first started of the 1.3 multiplier, although on reflection I do NOT think it was in the context of application to only two classes, however.

K

[Knestis]

Kirk - 130% car added after January 2008:
99-2000 Mazda Protege ES, (FP-DE) 122hp@6000
122*1.3*.98*17=2642.3 lbs., GCR 2645, added via Fastrack tech bulletin June 08. interestingly, the same issue has the MR2 move to ITB @ 2525# (130% weight) as a proposed change effective 1/1/09.
I can't think of any other new entries brought in under the 130% adder, but just to have all of the recent mentions in context, the 88-91 Civic DX ("Underwood" type) lost 130# 1/09 and the 92-95 ("Ruck" type) was moved from A to B 10/09 at its still current weight.

And in case its read that way, I was not trying to drag Travis or anyone else from the ITAC past/present/future into a fight. I just wanted to set the facts strait about the 2 cars Travis used in his example.

Sorry - I thought that situation had been well documented here.

We INCORRECTLY - as in, dumb-ass Kirk brainfarted the wrong number into the spreadsheet - specs on four cars on a con call. (Don't blame Andy - it was, I think, the only call he ever missed.). We used 1.3 instead of 1.25 on four cars:

Neon SE, ES, SXT
Toyota MR2
Mazda Protégé
Neon R/T & ACR

We realized the error and I started agitating about getting OUR MISTAKE corrected, but there seemed to be some collective reluctance about getting it done. It took long enough that the fix for the Protege and MR2 got caught up in the "Do B over?" conversation, which led to the spreadsheet JJJ shared being provided to the CRB, which led to their seizure. (My understanding and interpretation of events.)

Regardless, my emphasis was in the wrong place. We didn't do ANY B cars at 1.3 as a DEFAULT. We did some (notably the re-run of the MkII Golf and Jetta) using the "confidence" process.

K

[Knestis]

I have to respectfully disagree with some of this. I'm sure you kept excellent notes, and I know that after a while Jake was appointed secretary to do so as well.

But all of that information is 'lost" as far as the current ITAC is concerned. It's not documented anywhere on our site, and we can't go and easily get any information about why anything was done in the past. And that hurts us honestly (and not blaming anyone). If you have that information and would be willing to share it so I can put it up on the board as a historical "look" at how cars were classed over time that would be a tremendous help. ...

When I say stuck with the 1.30 default, what I mean is we have it, it was agreed to, it's in the Ops Manual and we've been using it. Changing it now might be worse than just sticking with it. No one is forcing us to do anything at this point.

I uploaded the then-most-current spreadsheet into the discussion board when I "retired," so I know it's there, but I'll email you a copy as well.

On the 1.3 issue, it appears that the ITAC supports it so as far as I'm concerned, further conversation isn't necessary. We need to trust that they know best.

K

[JeffYoung]

Thanks Kirk.

That probably is on the "old board" and I'm not facile enough with the SCCA website to get to it. If you could send me that, I'd really appreciate it and I'll put it up in our documentation section.

On 1.3, as a group, yes, we do support it (as a group). But I remain open to debate/discussion about it.


I uploaded the then-most-current spreadsheet into the discussion board when I "retired," so I know it's there, but I'll email you a copy as well.

On the 1.3 issue, it appears that the ITAC supports it so as far as I'm concerned, further conversation isn't necessary. We need to trust that they know best.

K

[Knestis]

Thanks Kirk.

That probably is on the "old board" and I'm not facile enough with the SCCA website to get to it. If you could send me that, I'd really appreciate it and I'll put it up in our documentation section.

On 1.3, as a group, yes, we do support it (as a group). But I remain open to debate/discussion about it.

...so all of the history documented in the "old" discussion board is lost to the current members...? That sucks. Nobody should be allowed to even BE on the committee without understanding all of the skeletons in that closet.

K

[JeffYoung]

It may be available, but I don't know of an easy way to get to it. I agree it should be available.


...so all of the history documented in the "old" discussion board is lost to the current members...? That sucks. Nobody should be allowed to even BE on the committee without understanding all of the skeletons in that closet.

K

[lateapex911]

Really!?!?!
the forum with 7 YEARS of data is "unavailable"?????
And i took notes for two years.....yet i havent heard a peep about needing the notes...

And nobody thinks thats a problem?? Kirks right...Scca has awful institutional memory. :shrug:

[JoshS]

Really!?!?!
the forum with 7 YEARS of data is "unavailable"?????
And i took notes for two years.....yet i havent heard a peep about needing the notes...

And nobody thinks thats a problem?? Kirks right...Scca has awful institutional memory. :shrug:

It's not unavailable, it's right where it always was: http://www.sccabb.com/sccabc

[Greg Amy]

It's not unavailable, it's right where it always was: http://www.sccabb.com/sccabc
I knew SCCA has been around for a while, but I guess I didn't realize how long...

"Last Post on December.30.1899 at 12:00am By"

[JeffYoung]

Is the "old" board there? I can't login (won't accept my existing login and PW).




It's not unavailable, it's right where it always was: http://www.sccabb.com/sccabc

[JoshS]

Is the "old" board there? I can't login (won't accept my existing login and PW).

All I know is that your username on that board is jyoung. You'll have to figure out your password. If you can't get in, talk to John Bauer at SCCA HQ. All current ITAC members should have access.

[JoshS]

On the 30% default multiplier for multivalve cars:

In ITB, there are very few multivalve cars, and there are even fewer that have had weights assigned via the process. In ITC, there might be none, but I'm not sure. It's largely an academic argument.

But not 100% academic, I understand that. I believe the following to be a complete list of multivalve engines in ITB, I made it some time ago and just dug it up. Please correct this if it's wrong, it might be useful someday:

Honda:
D15A3 (1st-gen CRX Si, Civic Si)
D15B1 ('88-'91 Civic DX)
D15B7 ('92-'95 Civic DX, Del Sol S)
A18A1 (Prelude 1.8)
A20A3 (Accord LX-i/SE-i)
B20A5 (Prelude Si)

Isuzu:
Geo Storm GSi/Isuzu Stylus XS

Mazda:
Protege ES ('99-'00)
626 ('93-'97)

Nissan:
Sentra ('91-'94)

Saab:
900 16V ('86-'90)

Suzuki:
Swift GT/GTi ('89-'94)

Toyota:
4A-GE (MR2/Corolla GTS/FX16/Geo Prizm GSi)

The Toyotas are not assigned weights using the default multiplier at this point, and I don't think anyone cares about the Isuzu/Mazda/Nissan/Saab. I think perhaps only the Protege actually has a weight assigned by the 30% default multiplier, although admittedly, I cannot keep track of all of these Hondas. So isn't this really just a "why are you penalizing my Honda" question? Just curious, would everyone be less upset if there wasn't a 30% multiplier for multivalve but instead there was a "Honda multivalve engines from the '80s and early '90s just seem to do better than 25%" rule? Not really proposing that as I have no dog in this fight and I'm not on the ITAC anymore.

[Knestis]

If the ITAC is confident that a single make/model needs a different multiplier, the system is there for them to apply it. It just requires doing.

The Protege was NOT assigned 30% by "default." It was assigned 30% by MISTAKE. No confidence vote was recorded. It doesn't matter if the same result would be achieved by the established process. It should be done so that the ITAC can assure everyone that the same system is being applied across the board. The minute one gets fudged, that's the point at which the ITAC and CRB give the members a stick to hit them with.

YES - it is semantics if the net result is that the ITAC decides that all of these multivalve B and C cars should get something other than a default, I-don't-have-to-think-about-it multiplier. They need to do their homework, go on record with the confidence recording process, and git 'er done. That's what makes the Process powerful.

K

[lateapex911]

Josh, in my eyes, it is NOT a "Why are you penalizing my Honda" question, because I see the bigger aspect.

Lets say there is a Citroen in ITA and the owner writes in asking to be reclassed to B, stating that he can't keep up in A. Has dyno sheets showing 116whp.

The ITAC looks at the car, and sure enough, it's 112hp and is currently specified at more than Process weight. But, the curbweight is high, and the ITAC feels it can't make ITA Process weight. (110 hp x1.25, x14.5 - 2% =1990.)

So, it decides ITB is the place. At the same time a letter arrives from another car, a Simca, with the same specs and dyno sheets. Again, it looks like a B car.

So, they go to ITB. But, the Simca goes in at 2330, while the 4 valve Citroen goes in at 2425.......about 100 pounds more.

Now both these cars were racing even up in A, but not in B. WHY!?

IF one is a Honda, and the ITAC has seen that every Honda with multivalves from 1984 to 1989 exceeds the standard 25% due to the equipment level or some hp robbing device, then fine, bring about that evidence, get a confidence vote (should be easy, it's been done before), and hit it with the appropriate weight.

But assuming ALL multivalve 4 cylinder engines that have ITB on the doors of their respective cars make an automatic 5% more hp is absurd.

To the current ITAC mebers who respond here, or lurk here, please answer me how you can justify classing cars in this manner?

Travis, what was the answer you got? You've gotten pretty quiet....

[tom91ita]

part of the multi-valve honda penalty question came up because there is the early version 12V heads and then the later version 16V heads.

85-87 crx civic Si's are 12V (think of a quadrant with two intakes, one exhaust and one spark plug in the four quadrants.

88-91 crx civic Si's are 16V (two intakes and two exhausts, one in each quadrant plus a sparkplug in the center).

there is no distinction between the two. now if an 8V gets the 25% factor and the 16V gets 30%, then what does the 12V get? right now 30% (which very well might be fair).

[JeffYoung]

No argument from me.

Now, say that you had this system in place for 2 years or so, and had (a) classed cars using it for a while and (b) created an expectation that this is the way things would be done from here forward.

You at least now have some reason not to change it, which is it will result in more weight changes in an already perceived to be unstable class.

But what ultimately makes the 1.3 default in ITB liveable for me is I can always approach it with a different view on confidence factor than I do the 1.25. Meaning that I may personally find it easier to move a 1.3 multi valve car to 1.25 based on less evidence than I would to move a 1.25 8v car to a higher or lower number.

My approach is not perfect, or aproblematic, but it is sort of a rough justice approach for me in dealing with the 1.3 default. I don't agree with it, but I accept it and work with it as best I can.

Right now guys, while we are not being told we have to do anything, I don't think a strong push to change the 1.3 default would get anywhere. In my opinion, the CRB considers it to be part of the Process, and a critical one in maintaining balance in ITB. Since I don't race in ITB, it's easier for me to say I'm willing to accept that minor (in my view) glitch in return for Process adherence and stability in all classes. At the same time, I understand why say a Dave Gran might see it as a much more important issue.




Josh, in my eyes, it is NOT a "Why are you penalizing my Honda" question, because I see the bigger aspect.

Lets say there is a Citroen in ITA and the owner writes in asking to be reclassed to B, stating that he can't keep up in A. Has dyno sheets showing 116whp.

The ITAC looks at the car, and sure enough, it's 112hp and is currently specified at more than Process weight. But, the curbweight is high, and the ITAC feels it can't make ITA Process weight. (110 hp x1.25, x14.5 - 2% =1990.)

So, it decides ITB is the place. At the same time a letter arrives from another car, a Simca, with the same specs and dyno sheets. Again, it looks like a B car.

So, they go to ITB. But, the Simca goes in at 2330, while the 4 valve Citroen goes in at 2425.......about 100 pounds more.

Now both these cars were racing even up in A, but not in B. WHY!?

IF one is a Honda, and the ITAC has seen that every Honda with multivalves from 1984 to 1989 exceeds the standard 25% due to the equipment level or some hp robbing device, then fine, bring about that evidence, get a confidence vote (should be easy, it's been done before), and hit it with the appropriate weight.

But assuming ALL multivalve 4 cylinder engines that have ITB on the doors of their respective cars make an automatic 5% more hp is absurd.

To the current ITAC mebers who respond here, or lurk here, please answer me how you can justify classing cars in this manner?

Travis, what was the answer you got? You've gotten pretty quiet....

[Knestis]

... the CRB considers it to be a new part of the Process, and a critical one in maintaining balance in ITB.Edited to be clear for the record, so in the future when someone goes looking, they'll understand that it's NOT part of any process codified between 2005 and this past winter.

The CRB pressed it - presumably as part of the negotiation that got the current Process codified - and the ITAC agrees with it, so it's the law of the land. Make no mistake though, that y'all (the Ad Hoc) own it now.

I admit that I get VERY worried about your workaround there, Jeff. Each ITAC member should always judge alternate multipliers by the merit of the evidence, not jigger their thinking to result in the outcome they think is most correct...

...and (big picture warning) it sets a lousy precedent, both in terms of leaving a practice in place that you admit you don't like while developing a workaround to avoid adhering to it, AND for what is says about how the ITAC does its work and manages its relationship with the CRB. You make recommendations; they decide. They decide; you make a recommendation to do something different; they decide anyway. That's how it's supposed to work. That, as opposed to "they unofficially decide but 'we are not being told we have to do anything,' we unofficially decide not to make a stink about it, but we don't REALLY support it so have come up with a way to diddle it."

Nobody wants to own it but again, you do.

If you let the system work this way on THIS issue, you WILL let it work the same way on another so it is NOT JUST AN ITB PROBLEM. And you've made the Process a little less dink-proof along the way.

K

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I appreciate the thoughts and response.
My thinking about the "But it's been in place for awhile" aspect is, (Assuming that's the case...a big assumption, but for the sake of discussion) well, ok, but the cars that have been classed by it are:
A- WRONGLY classed.
or
B- Correctly classed.
Yea, duh! I know. hear me out. IF the ITAC finds evidence that supports the 30% as being appropriate, fine, USE the evidence, have a confidence vote, and do the math. As the Proceedural manual describes. Where it lands is where it lands.
If the ITAC has no evidence...or not enough to achieve the 75% go /no go, then it gets classed....correctly...at 25%.

Simply put, I really don't care about the saving face aspect of not adjusting a car that just got adjusted. If it was classed at 30% for ITB, and it wouldn't have been in ITA, then it needs to be done right, once and for all.....if there is no compelling evidence to the contrary.

And as for the REST of ITB, well, this 30% thing has nothing to do with the other cars. If the other cars are right, they are right...if they are wrong, de-list them, ignore them, or fix them.

The "instability" argument is a red herring, in my view. Bigger picture is most important.

Regarding the comment about the CRB considering it an important aspect of maintaining balance in ITB, HOW can that be? So I'd like to modify my above request for ITAC mebers who lurk to speak up, and ask that CRB members please help me see the light. My above example is the way you are doing things now, and clearly it UNbalances cars that enter ITB. How is that "An important aspect of maintaining the balance"???

And while YOU may find it easy to move off of 30%, it's clear that other members do not, as evidenced by the MR2. The system needs to be correct at the start, THEN use to options you have to adjust when needed, as opposed to starting all fubared, then attempting to do some workaround to tweak it where you want it. That was the problem with the old system....too many tweaks...and 'deals', and the next thing you know, consistency has gone out the window, and errors are stacking up.

[JeffYoung]

The confidence level required for a change is inherently personal. I don't think it contrary to the Ops Manual, or good sense, for me to say that you don't have to do as much to convince me to move off of the 1.3 default for a multivalve in ITB to go to 1.25 because I'm not personally convinced that all multivalves make big power.

I'd like for the Process to be perfect. It will never be perfect for everyone, either in how it is set up or how it operates in practice. I think it is entirely unrealistic to say that each ITAC member should "like" every decision that the committee makes in order to accept that decision by the committee. That's just not possible.

But I guess here is what I am driving at. I think a lot of the heated opposition to this rule -- and I fully agree we own it now -- stems from how it came about, not from how it actually is operating in practice. On the former, I understand the frustration. But on the latter, I don't see this as anything other than a minor glitch that isn't causing any fundamental problems in car classifications.

A majority portion of the ITAC thinks that multi-valve architecture in ITB should have us start with a 1.3 modifier. I disagree for a lot of reasons, but I don't think it is a fundamental flaw in the big picture.


Edited to be clear for the record, so in the future when someone goes looking, they'll understand that it's NOT part of any process codified between 2005 and this past winter.

The CRB pressed it - presumably as part of the negotiation that got the current Process codified - and the ITAC agrees with it, so it's the law of the land. Make no mistake though, that y'all (the Ad Hoc) own it now.

I admit that I get VERY worried about your workaround there, Jeff. Each ITAC member should always judge alternate multipliers by the merit of the evidence, not jigger their thinking to result in the outcome they think is most correct...

...and (big picture warning) it sets a lousy precedent, both in terms of leaving a practice in place that you admit you don't like while developing a workaround to avoid adhering to it, AND for what is says about how the ITAC does its work and manages its relationship with the CRB. You make recommendations; they decide. They decide; you make a recommendation to do something different; they decide anyway. That's how it's supposed to work. That, as opposed to "they unofficially decide but 'we are not being told we have to do anything,' we unofficially decide not to make a stink about it, but we don't REALLY support it so have come up with a way to diddle it."

Nobody wants to own it but again, you do.

If you let the system work this way on THIS issue, you WILL let it work the same way on another so it is NOT JUST AN ITB PROBLEM. And you've made the Process a little less dink-proof along the way.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

If you let the system work this way on THIS issue, you WILL let it work the same way on another so it is NOT JUST AN ITB PROBLEM. And you've made the Process a little less dink-proof along the way.

K

It already isn't an ITB only problem. The all BMW-6's get an automatic 30% has chased me away. Heck, the 2.8 can't even get a fair deal in STU either due to the fact that the thin wall plastic intake manifold CAN NOT be port matched, and they're not about to let it swap intake manifolds there either.

[JoshS]

It already isn't an ITB only problem. The all BMW-6's get an automatic 30% has chased me away. Heck, the 2.8 can't even get a fair deal in STU either due to the fact that the thin wall plastic intake manifold CAN NOT be port matched, and they're not about to let it swap intake manifolds there either.

If I read the new preliminary August Fastrack right, STU is now allowing the M50 manifold on an M52 engine in an E36 chassis, but not in a Z3 (intake manifold has to match either the engine or the chassis).

As for the I6 thing ... I can't remember for certain, but I think that's been fixed for the Lexus/Toyota I6 and I think there are still letters pending (from me) about BMWs that might not deserve it.

[Z3_GoCar]

If I read the new preliminary August Fastrack right, STU is now allowing the M50 manifold on an M52 engine in an E36 chassis, but not in a Z3 (intake manifold has to match either the engine or the chassis).

As for the I6 thing ... I can't remember for certain, but I think that's been fixed for the Lexus/Toyota I6 and I think there are still letters pending (from me) about BMWs that might not deserve it.

From Greg's post:


We're trying to manage several different things at one time, exactly as you describe. But the primary driving issue that this addresses right now is the installation of a FWD engine into a RWD chassis and vice versa. For now this is the easiest way to do it without having a lot of line-item exceptions.

We'll work on a long-term solution. Ideas appreciated.

That may be an unanticipated consequence of trying to allow fwd motors in rwd chassis. As you say it fixes it in the sedan, but not the Z3's. What does fix it is a motor swap, that's so easy, I still used the 2.8's oil pan, ZF transmission, valve cover/oil seperator, oil filter/cooler, aluminum flywheel, and motor mount brackets.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=2&pictureid=465

[Knestis]

It already isn't an ITB only problem. The all BMW-6's get an automatic 30% has chased me away. ...

NOT TRUE.

A newly-spec'd BMW - like ay other car - is assumed to make a 25% increase until the ITAC makes a determination otherwise using one of two prescribed methods.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

If I read the new preliminary August Fastrack right, STU is now allowing the M50 manifold on an M52 engine in an E36 chassis, but not in a Z3 (intake manifold has to match either the engine or the chassis).

As for the I6 thing ... I can't remember for certain, but I think that's been fixed for the Lexus/Toyota I6 and I think there are still letters pending (from me) about BMWs that might not deserve it.

HOLY GOD please do the research on the BMW's. The 323's in ITS are making 200+whp, the E36 325's make 215+whp and the 325eta makes big gains too. There is a ton of data on what can be done to a 330 and they are all over 30%.

MAYBE, that one 328 with the weird intake is limited but geezus don't create an overdog because the info wasn't right under our noses. When the tuners grab hold of the VANOS via the ECU, it really lets the horses fly! If you haven't seen dyno sheets with this kind of control, you haven't seen enough to make a change.

[Greg Amy]

HOLY GOD please do the research on the BMW's.
Andy, this is STU, not IT. You know, as in World Challenge-level builds? And if they start making power over and above expected levels, they'll get SIRs. That's the nature of the beast.

Let 'em play. Have fun.

GA

[gran racing]

Is multivalve 2, 3 or 4? Should a 3 valve and 4 valve receive the same 30% default factor?


Meaning that I may personally find it easier to move a 1.3 multi valve car to 1.25 based on less evidence than I would to move a 1.25 8v car to a higher or lower number.

So why have any defaults at all? How much evidence is needed to keep a non-multivalve car at the preassigned 25% rating? If it's not the same exact amount that is needed to move a multi-valve car to the 25% factor then it's wrong even with the way you're attempting to rationalize things.

Jeff, I honestly appreciate where you're coming from and working with the system that's in place. I do think it's important to get rid of this now before we get to far with things.


stems from how it came about, not from how it actually is operating in practice.

Frustration stems from how it remains AND how it will impact cars in the future. The point of the process, or so I thought, was to establish a method for current and future ITAC members to classify cars. There is no expectation for ITAC members to devise workaround for flaws within the classification structure.

What annoys the crap out of me is no one can provide proof that multivalve engines produce a 5% gain over non-multivalve engines. How all of a sudden an ITA multivalve engine no longer sees this magical 5% gain that ITB and ITC engines sees.

I see that the multivalve request is still pending decision (#4229). Is this not a done deal yet?

[JeffYoung]

Like I said, I understand your frustration.

Let me ask you this though.

Accord aside (which is an issue for me -- a big one), what about the 30% default in ITB has caused any competition issues?

[Chip42]

Like I said, I understand your frustration.

Let me ask you this though.

Accord aside (which is an issue for me -- a big one), what about the 30% default in ITB has caused any competition issues?

The difficulty with establishing an answer to this has to do with a number of things

1 - ITB is a hodgepodge of classification methodologies, so no one is 100% aware of the bogey at this intant. I'd recon it's the A20 accords (which seem very strong from the sidelines and are evidently up for a re-run at 30%), the D15 16v civics, and the A3 VWs until the 2002 and vovi get re-run, and they should be right in the mix - they certainly are supposed to be. but this is just among the cars that are currently being run.

2 - of the cars classified, few are currently raced (i.e. the storm GSi which appears as if it would be a major overdog as weighted) so it's hard to say where the fulcrum of balnace is within the listings.

3 - there are few cars classed with the 30% default, all are new to the class, and of those that were not new to IT, overall numbers weren't very high in the first place (4A-GE sibs) and were moved down as they were not previously competitive in ITA. ***the only exceptions that I know of are the 12v civic and CRX, which were adjusted down to 30% due to that being default, not in response to positive data showing 30% gains.***

So while issues may not have been casued - i.e. no existing competitive car in B was affected by the 30% multiplier, some cars classed with it have been denied the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. in the case of the MR2 (and hopefully its cousins) the recent correction is some justice but the car still appears to be off the pace. having the opportunity to START at this point would obviously not have hurt anything. Ask Spinetti how he feels about his Corolla's chances in B, even at 2385#.

Who knows what the FP-DE protege's potential is? I know of 2, one of them is pretty quick so MAYBE the 30% was right in this case. time might tell - but starting at 25% would privide the same data, maybe sooner. either way, it's not disrupted anything.

the 12V civic/CRX Si may prove to be quite strong at this weight, but that isn't unexpected given the history of the brand in IT trim. while that shouldn't be sufficient to justify the default 30%, it might be sufficient for a confidence vote in using 30 rather than 25, no?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, this is STU, not IT. You know, as in World Challenge-level builds? And if they start making power over and above expected levels, they'll get SIRs. That's the nature of the beast.

Let 'em play. Have fun.

GA

Nope, my response was in reaction to Josh's post on IT-agendas.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like I said, I understand your frustration.

Let me ask you this though.

Accord aside (which is an issue for me -- a big one), what about the 30% default in ITB has caused any competition issues?

Smells like brain-wasking to me... :)

No NEGATIVE issues to the CLASS, just CARS. It's a classing them uncompetitively - and that is NOT the way the Process was conceived to work. It's a 'best-guess-power-to-weight-with-some-adjustments-for-physical-charateristics" classing system.

Not a "class-them-high-and-adjust-down-when-we-see-they-can't-compete" system.

[gran racing]

what about the 30% default in ITB has caused any competition issues?

Ah, so we're looking at on track performance again. :rolleyes: Wasn't that same general question asked prior to moving forward with the process and evaluating already classed cars? Hell, I personally was told that "IT is great, why should we mess with it?" when talks of the process being implimented were going on. We really don't know what issues this multivalve adder has caused. Guess we should just hope that we were lucky instead of right or more importantly, fair. Give cars and competitors a fair shake. I honestly don't think that's too much to ask for, and am certain you don't either.

Fine, all multivalve cars now and going forward just coincidently achive this magic number just cause and not because the ITAC reviewed information that actually supports it. Either way is a big ole ugly wart on the process for ITB & ITC. It's a shame to go this far with the process and have that.

The Accord should be looked at fairly just like any other multivalve car. If evidence says that particular engine gains 30% from a build, adjust accordingly. If it says 20%, then fine. To me, it's all about what Chip said:


some cars classed with it have been denied the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.

[lateapex911]

Like I said, I understand your frustration.

Let me ask you this though.

Accord aside (which is an issue for me -- a big one), what about the 30% default in ITB has caused any competition issues?

jeff, I love ya man, but really? You KNOW that misses the point ...by a mile.

1- Can you really tell if there have or have not been issues based on the number of cars classed thusly /the prep level of that small number of examples/the driver level of those cars, the track conditions, the weather, the tires, the track itself, the competitive level of the OTHER cars, and on and on and on....

No, you can draw NO reasonable conclusions....

But again, that's NOT the point.
Look at my example...that's how it works now? Two equal cars, equal weighted in one class, but a hundred pounds different in ITB because the sticker on the door has one letter different.

Going forward...the BIG picture..is the issue.
Please, edit your post before Kirk sees it, or he'll burst a blood vessel LOL.

[JeffYoung]

No, I believe what I wrote. It's the very same argument we use to justify the process. Our system of power/weight classification has not produced overdogs, etc.

Same is true of the 1.3 in ITB. I don't like it, but I have to balance the hurt of trying to change it v. the hurt of not. I could conceivably spend a lot of political capital trying to get it changed, at the expense of a whole host of much bigger issues we are facing in IT land.

Look, I don't like and don't agree with the 1.3 default. But I don't see it as some sort of offense to humanity that you guys do. Part of that is, I admit, because I don't run in B or C.

Personally, I think some of the deducts and adders are far more problematic from a repeatability/fairness standpoint.

And I think there are ways to work around it to make sure it doesn't gum up the works.

I get -- trust me, I think Travis and I are two of the only guys left who have fully bought into this -- repeatability, objectivity, and transparency.

But you guys have to remember -- and I love all three of you -- that this a committee with folks with different viewpoints on things. We can't always get what we want all the time.

Here, to me, it's just not worth the fight it would take to fix this if it is as entrenched as I personally believe it is. If the issue comes up, I will explain why I think the 1.3 default is wrong, and I would vote against continuing to use it. But I'm not going to say the whole system is junk because of this one issue I disagree with.




jeff, I love ya man, but really? You KNOW that misses the point ...by a mile.

1- Can you really tell if there have or have not been issues based on the number of cars classed thusly /the prep level of that small number of examples/the driver level of those cars, the track conditions, the weather, the tires, the track itself, the competitive level of the OTHER cars, and on and on and on....

No, you can draw NO reasonable conclusions....

But again, that's NOT the point.
Look at my example...that's how it works now? Two equal cars, equal weighted in one class, but a hundred pounds different in ITB because the sticker on the door has one letter different.

Going forward...the BIG picture..is the issue.
Please, edit your post before Kirk sees it, or he'll burst a blood vessel LOL.

[JoshS]

No, I believe what I wrote. It's the very same argument we use to justify the process. Our system of power/weight classification has not produced overdogs, etc.

Same is true of the 1.3 in ITB. I don't like it, but I have to balance the hurt of trying to change it v. the hurt of not. I could conceivably spend a lot of political capital trying to get it changed, at the expense of a whole host of much bigger issues we are facing in IT land.

Look, I don't like and don't agree with the 1.3 default. But I don't see it as some sort of offense to humanity that you guys do. Part of that is, I admit, because I don't run in B or C.

Personally, I think some of the deducts and adders are far more problematic from a repeatability/fairness standpoint.

And I think there are ways to work around it to make sure it doesn't gum up the works.

I get -- trust me, I think Travis and I are two of the only guys left who have fully bought into this -- repeatability, objectivity, and transparency.

But you guys have to remember -- and I love all three of you -- that this a committee with folks with different viewpoints on things. We can't always get what we want all the time.

Here, to me, it's just not worth the fight it would take to fix this if it is as entrenched as I personally believe it is. If the issue comes up, I will explain why I think the 1.3 default is wrong, and I would vote against continuing to use it. But I'm not going to say the whole system is junk because of this one issue I disagree with.

I agree.

[Knestis]

... I could conceivably spend a lot of political capital trying to get it changed, at the expense of a whole host of much bigger issues we are facing in IT land. ...

The ITAC looks at the question, checks consensus on what THEY THINK is best for the class, then makes a formal recommendation to the CRB. When the CRB does its job and makes a decision, the membership knows who to lobby for what they believe is right.

It's not hard guys but you have to help the membership hold the CRB - or the member or two who actually make the decisions about IT - accountable for their actions. NOBODY HERE thinks that this thing is good for the category. Nobody.

Why is it STILL so hard to envision, that decision-makers in the Club will act openly...? The fact that we think it takes any "political capital" is evidence that we're still screwed up.

K

[JoshS]

The fact that we think it takes any "political capital" is evidence that we're still screwed up.

Ever the idealist.

The idea that the ITAC will just make their best recommendations and then have the CRB take it or leave it is how the country gets left without the ability to pay its bills, or how the state of California ends up without a budget for months.

It's all about working together and compromising, not just blindly sticking to ideals. That's becomes "political," I'm sorry to say, but there'd be zero forward progress without it. I think you know that.

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, you are an extremely smart, 50 year old guy. You have a lot of life experience and a lot of experience working in groups.

You have to know and understand this. You just have to. I know you do.

When groups of people get together, they make decisions basically via what is "politicking." Working together. Compromising. Give and take.

That's the way the world works.

Here, what you guys can't get your minds around is that some folks actually reasonably believe the 1.3 default makes sense. It's not some secret plan to screw others. It's not some fiendish attempt to hide from membership how decisions are made. They truly believe that it makes the most sense to have a 1.3 default for multi-valve engines in ITB.

THe question is do we potentially cause a huge blow up and do damage to how the committee is operating, and the relationship with the CRB, over THIS (in my view not massively important) point.

For me, the answer is no. I'll vote against it (the 1.3 default) if asked. But I am not personally going to war over this.

I will say it again. I think the process by which the FWD deduct was adopted was far more flawed, far more secretive and far less scientific and rational than the 1.3 issue, and has far more implications for the rest of the class. But I accept that this was the decision of the committee, and apply the FWD deduct when asked.

The Process is a great tool. Huge step forward. But it's not a religion and we don't burn the heretics, much less not accept the fact that it may not be perfect in all cases and may always have a wart or two.


The ITAC looks at the question, checks consensus on what THEY THINK is best for the class, then makes a formal recommendation to the CRB. When the CRB does its job and makes a decision, the membership knows who to lobby for what they believe is right.

It's not hard guys but you have to help the membership hold the CRB - or the member or two who actually make the decisions about IT - accountable for their actions. NOBODY HERE thinks that this thing is good for the category. Nobody.

Why is it STILL so hard to envision, that decision-makers in the Club will act openly...? The fact that we think it takes any "political capital" is evidence that we're still screwed up.

K

[gran racing]

some folks actually reasonably believe the 1.3 default makes sense.

Fine then. Have these individuals back it up with proof and solid reasoning. I really don't that's too much to ask.


I think the process by which the FWD deduct was adopted was far more flawed, far more secretive and far less scientific and rational than the 1.3 issue, and has far more implications for the rest of the class.

Oh well that makes me feel better. LOL!!!


I'll vote against it (the 1.3 default) if asked.

You've been asked via letter # 4429. I know now it's pointless, but since the decision has been made I see no reason to not put the generic "no, thank you for your input" answer in Fastrack.

[JeffYoung]

Do you feel that your car is unfairly classified?

Do you feel that any of your competitors (other than the Accord or the MR2) are unfairly classified?

Meaning, has the 1.3 default created any real problems or are we only speaking theoretically at this point?




Fine then. Have these individuals back it up with proof and solid reasoning. I really don't that's too much to ask.



Oh well that makes me feel better. LOL!!!



You've been asked via letter # 4429. I know now it's pointless, but since the decision has been made I see no reason to not put the generic "no, thank you for your input" answer in Fastrack.

[Knestis]

...and Josh has retired from the ITAC, and eventually Jeff will, too, and we'll be left with the same system we've struggled with for decades - one wherein something like this 1.3x requirement can literally be the decision of one or two particular people in the right place in the system. I'm pretty confident that this is the case in this instance but the membership doesn't know who he is or his motivation.

I have exactly ZERO problem if someone "reasonably believes the 1.3 default makes sense." If it's not a "secret plan" or "fiendish attempt." then they should have ZERO problem having their position in the record, being able to explain it, and NOT "hiding from membership how decisions are made."

It's a fundamental problem if ITAC members know the source of the decision and won't say because "it's a secret," and that you feel that making an ad hoc committee recommendation to the CRB would result in a "huge blow up and do damage to how the committee is operating." I suggest, "run it up the chain of command for a transparent decision," and you hear "go to war."

I don't think one needs to be a Pollyanna to think there's a problem with that.

K

[JeffYoung]

I can't convey to you the nuances of everything that happens in committee, nor is it my place (nor should I) specifically state what other individual members on the committee think about the 1.3 default.

I can speak generally about it, and I would like to think you know me, and Josh, well enough to believe us when we say that the folks who supported it did so for apparently rational reasons and even though I disagree with them, there is nothing untoward going on here.

The folks who do believe that aren't hiding from membership. I believe they would be more than happy to discuss any of this with you face to face. FOr a variety of reasons, some of which I understand and some of which I don't, they choose not to post on internet boards.


...and Josh has retired from the ITAC, and eventually Jeff will, too, and we'll be left with the same system we've struggled with for decades - one wherein something like this 1.3x requirement can literally be the decision of one or two particular people in the right place in the system. I'm pretty confident that this is the case in this instance but the membership doesn't know who he is or his motivation.

I have exactly ZERO problem if someone "reasonably believes the 1.3 default makes sense." If it's not a "secret plan" or "fiendish attempt." then they should have ZERO problem having their position in the record, being able to explain it, and NOT "hiding from membership how decisions are made."

It's a fundamental problem if ITAC members know the source of the decision and won't say because "it's a secret," and that you feel that making an ad hoc committee recommendation to the CRB would result in a "huge blow up and do damage to how the committee is operating." I suggest, "run it up the chain of command for a transparent decision," and you hear "go to war."

I don't think one needs to be a Pollyanna to think there's a problem with that.

K

[gran racing]

Jeff, I genuinely feel that multivalve cars are not given the same consideration and on a level playing ground when using the process. This has an impact on how existing and future multivalve cars are classed. While you and a couple of others might feel comfortable with a workaround, I am not. I do recognize the politics involved in this but lets at least call it that.

On the flip side now, have the other members who feel otherwise provide proof why this default makes sense, is fair, and we’ll be done this. It shouldn’t be that difficult if it’s valid.

This is where personally my biggest frustration comes from. No one has been able to provide a solid reason for it.


Do you feel that your car is unfairly classified?

My feeling prior to this popping into the newest version of the process was just to trust the outcomes and let the chips fall where they may. After submitting the Golf III for review, I also thought it would only be fair (for better or worse) to submit my car to be run through the same process. It was submitted a long time ago. I’d like cars to be given a fair chance to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly.

Don't worry, I'm done with this.

[JeffYoung]

No one has been able to provide a solid reason that you agree with.

Those guys (collectively) seem to think that in general, the 4 valve motors in ITB will make 30%. That's their belief and while I think a default is the wrong way to go, there is empircal data to back it up (and some that cuts against it).

But it's no more voodoo (to me) than using a computer program that you have no idea how it works, or how it uses variables or what it does when you click a box that says "FWD" to help you formulate a significant weight deduction for FWD cars.


Jeff, I genuinely feel that multivalve cars are not given the same consideration and on a level playing ground when using the process. This has an impact on how existing and future multivalve cars are classed. While you and a couple of others might feel comfortable with a workaround, I am not. I do recognize the politics involved in this but lets at least call it that.

On the flip side now, have the other members who feel otherwise provide proof why this default makes sense, is fair, and we’ll be done this. It shouldn’t be that difficult if it’s valid.

This is where personally my biggest frustration comes from. No one has been able to provide a solid reason for it.



My feeling prior to this popping into the newest version of the process was just to trust the outcomes and let the chips fall where they may. After submitting the Golf III for review, I also thought it would only be fair (for better or worse) to submit my car to be run through the same process. It was submitted a long time ago. I’d like cars to be given a fair chance to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly.

Don't worry, I'm done with this.

[JeffYoung]

That's not entirely true either. The original draft of the process had a variety of default assumed gains, one of which was the multivavle. Others were smogged up POSs, others were inline sixes.

Some cars got gain modifiers in excess of 25% without any real determination as to why before the present Process in the Ops Manual was put in place.


NOT TRUE.

A newly-spec'd BMW - like ay other car - is assumed to make a 25% increase until the ITAC makes a determination otherwise using one of two prescribed methods.

K

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I REALLY want to hear how this 30% crap makes sense, really. And I give you a TON of credit for being the only current guy on the ITAC, essentially, to stand up and actually communicate.

(Travis posted here that it was NOT a 'political' thing, yet when cross examined he's gone away and decided to stop posting before he got further in the hole. I know he's still on the boards and reading, because he's visible. I give him credit for communicating, and I know he doesn't know the whole background, even if he thinks he might. And thats fine.)

So, kudos to you.

I get 'political capital', but THAT is the VERY thing that bugs the hell out of me. You and Josh have insinuated broadly that to push this issue would be to doom a otherwise good working relationship with the CRB. In fact, you know that I was essentially invited to get lost when I began to call out some of the CRB hijinks. So it's obvious that the CRB has factions that are insisting the 30% crap remain.

So, I have no issue with you, or Josh in working to get the big ship moved...at the expense of one of it's four engines.

My HUGE issue is that I can not get over is how ANYone can defend this, with a straight face. MAYbe they can, but we'll never know unless they man up and speak....and sure, you can say "Some people are uncomfortable with posting...and it's not my place to identify them", so, guess what, we'll never even get a defense to consider.

I KNOW you think they are being good honest believe in what they are saying individuals.
But I think they are rationalizing their positions and have gotten to the point they actually believe what they are saying...whoever they are.

But I would LOVE to be proved wrong.

Now, I KNOW what I heard on a con call, and I KNOW that a car can't make 5% more hp because it has a "B" sticker on the door.....so I HAVE to think that logic has flown out the window. I won't go as far to say that the persons who originally did 'the deal' did it for personal gain, but I DO think they can't see the cold reality of the ridiculousness because their vision is obscured by something.

And, the lack of legitimate defense from whoever they are sure doesn't help the appearance.

As a side note, I feel that if you (the general you) are on a committee to serve the clubs members, you owe it to them to be available for communication, and to have your opinions counted and documented publicly. I understand that many disagree, and they prefer to work behind closed doors. But, to me, if i can't explain or reasonably justify my position to a member, then maybe I should rethink that position. I don't expect every member to agree, but that's fine. I've stood in the paddock at Road Atlanta discussing things and I KNOW the person I was talking to disagreed, but, that's ok, they saw my side, and I saw theirs. And they both made sense.

[lateapex911]

That's not entirely true either. The original draft of the process had a variety of default assumed gains, one of which was the multivavle. Others were smogged up POSs, others were inline sixes.

Some cars got gain modifiers in excess of 25% without any real determination as to why before the present Process in the Ops Manual was put in place.

True, but that goes waaaaay back. There is no current "BMW 6s get 25 + X% added" factor.

Oh, and the multivalve thing was, of course, for ALL classes. ;) Because if it was true, then it was true for any class. ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think I just killed a man with a trident.

:dead_horse:

[tnord]

Travis posted here that it was NOT a 'political' thing, yet when cross examined he's gone away and decided to stop posting before he got further in the hole.

i've been sworn to secrecy by the CRB, BOD, Dahnert, and even Brownback himself....so i can't answer your questions even if i wanted to.

you guys are so blind with bitterness and boredom that you can't even see that i'm on your side. but please.....carry on.

[JeffYoung]

30% gain on tridents. 3 prongs.


I think I just killed a man with a trident.

:dead_horse:

[JeffYoung]

Honestly, I thought the same thing as we were sitting there using a program we didn't understand to set weights in IT. I thought it was completely indefensible. I also thought a bunch of guys I know, like, trust and think are smart disagreed with me, so I needed to respect that.


My HUGE issue is that I can not get over is how ANYone can defend this, with a straight face.

[Andy Bettencourt]

30% gain on tridents. 3 prongs.

http://content6.flixster.com/photo/10/40/97/10409780_gal.jpg

[Eagle7]

My HUGE issue is that I can not get over is how ANYone can defend this, with a straight face. MAYbe they can, but we'll never know unless they man up and speak....and sure, you can say "Some people are uncomfortable with posting...and it's not my place to identify them", so, guess what, we'll never even get a defense to consider.

I KNOW you think they are being good honest believe in what they are saying individuals.
But I think they are rationalizing their positions and have gotten to the point they actually believe what they are saying...whoever they are.
I'm with you Jake, but there's one thing I don't get. If they've decided not to play in our neighborhood, why don't you go to them? Pick up the phone an call every last one of the ITAC members. If they claim it's a CRB issue, call the CRB members.

[Knestis]

i've been sworn to secrecy by the CRB, BOD, Dahnert, and even Brownback himself....so i can't answer your questions even if i wanted to.

you guys are so blind with bitterness and boredom that you can't even see that i'm on your side. but please.....carry on.

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, Travis, but frankly you're just being nasty.

I've been involved in the Club since 1979 and IT since before it was a nationally recognized class. Don't you think there's a remote possibility that I am concerned about it because I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IT...?

And no - we can't see what side you're on when you make snotty comments rather than substantive ones.

K