May 2011 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Preliminary:

http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%20Tech/Preliminary%20May%20TB%20Fastrack%20_2_.pdf

[tom91ita]

Preliminary:

http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%20Tech/Preliminary%20May%20TB%20Fastrack%20_2_.pdf

Hallelujah! :happy204:
now i have to race next year! maybe even the ARRC this year.....

[Russ Myers]

SSC is dead. Long live SSC.

Russ

[shwah]

Hallelujah! :happy204:
now i have to race next year! maybe even the ARRC this year.....

You should. You now have one of the cars to have. Now go :eclipsee_steering:

[iambhooper]

Hallelujah! :happy204:
now i have to race next year! maybe even the ARRC this year.....


2. #4583 (Josh Sirota) Adjust weight of first-generation Honda CRX Si
In 9.1.3, ITB, Honda CRX Si (84-87) change weight from 2130 to 1970, based on a 30% horsepower multiplier.

DAYAM! That car will truely kick @$$ at that weight... if you can make it!

hoop

[Harvey]

What about the Civic??

[tom91ita]

You should. You now have one of the cars to have. Now go :eclipsee_steering:

if the process is working, we should all have one of the cars to have...but this does make me more optimistic. thanks!

with regards to making the weight, the car was originally in "A" as 1800 # + 180 # driver then later 1980 driver included.

the car may be able even if the driver is not....

but i have added things over the years and was not really thinking weight (dash bar, right side door bars, etc.)

Tom

FS: two ~ 50 # blocks of steel :)
but don't call because i will be out walking 4 miles per night to lose weight.

[JeffYoung]

Exactly. This point seems to get lost quite often. The process is power/weight, so it should roughly equalize all cars.

This car was tagged with a ridiculously high (in my view) power adder.

But there shouldn't be any fears of domination, yet anyway. The car should simply now be at a power/weight ratio that is within a reasonable range of competitiveness for the class.


if the process is working, we should all have one of the cars to have...but this does make me more optimistic. thanks!

.

[erlrich]

if the process is working, we should all have one of the cars to have...

Tom - this is a common misconception, and unfortunately isn't even close to reality. If you go back through some of the numerous discussion about the process you'll find that the last thing it is concerned with is making all the cars equal. The process is all about having a consistent, repeatable, and documented procedure for classifying cars. The process could care less about the outcomes. So yeah, there will still be the "cars to have" in IT, but at least we'll know that they were classed fairly...:shrug:

[tnord]

Tom - this is a common misconception, and unfortunately isn't even close to reality. If you go back through some of the numerous discussion about the process you'll find that the last thing it is concerned with is making all the cars equal. The process is all about having a consistent, repeatable, and documented procedure for classifying cars. The process could care less about the outcomes. So yeah, there will still be the "cars to have" in IT, but at least we'll know that they were classed fairly...:shrug:

i have yet to see anything processed that hasn't come out the other side with a fighting chance.

[erlrich]

i have yet to see anything processed that hasn't come out the other side with a fighting chance.

When I see a Neon, GTI, and RX7 running for the ITA win in Atlanta I'll agree with you...

[Russ Myers]

Or a Pinto that isn't 6 seconds off of the pace.

Russ

[tnord]

When I see a Neon, GTI, and RX7 running for the ITA win in Atlanta I'll agree with you...

give me a break earl. you know the history on the RX7 as well if not better than I do, and that's not a valid example in the least.

the neon seems to do just fine as far as i can tell. Childs was gridded right next to me at the ARRC last year in his neon....i haven't seen anything showing it can't be competitive. on track or on paper.

the VW? i don't know anything about it, i hate those damn things. :D

[JeffYoung]

When have we seen an uber-developed version of one along the lines of the Stretch 240, the Serra/Muresan/Hoppe Integras or the Moser CRXs?

I do think the process gets things "roughly" close. That is certianly one of the goals. Come up with a rough power to weight formula and apply it consistently and as objectively as possible.

I would also point out that Ricky Thompson's maxxed out ITA RX7 gave Mark Carpenter a run for his money that one year Ricky went all out in ITA.


When I see a Neon, GTI, and RX7 running for the ITA win in Atlanta I'll agree with you...

[JeffYoung]

Do you have....data acquisition? spring testing? what rates are you running? shocks? welded rear end or a good clutch pack set up? lightened the car to the max and then ballasted it? crank scraper in the motor? .040 over? nice 1" gasket match port job? .5 compression bump? Lightweight low drag piston rings? Lightweight oils in the tranny and diff? Brake ducting? Experimented with different pad compounds? hours on the dyno to tune carbs and timing?

2.3 liters in ITB (or 2.0, or whatever it is) is a lot of displacement. That car will have some handling issues but it seems to me with the displacement, ok aero, and RWD it could be made competitive with a lot of work.

I've been there. I had a dead slow ITS car that no one thought could run up front and with a ton of work I got there. But it was a TON of work.



Or a Pinto that isn't 6 seconds off of the pace.

Russ

[JeffYoung]

Ditto.


i have yet to see anything processed that hasn't come out the other side with a fighting chance.

[shwah]

if the process is working, we should all have one of the cars to have...but this does make me more optimistic. thanks!

with regards to making the weight, the car was originally in "A" as 1800 # + 180 # driver then later 1980 driver included.

the car may be able even if the driver is not....

but i have added things over the years and was not really thinking weight (dash bar, right side door bars, etc.)

Tom

FS: two ~ 50 # blocks of steel :)
but don't call because i will be out walking 4 miles per night to lose weight.

Sorry if it came off differently, but it was meant as a positive comment. We still need to resolve the front runners that hold a significant lb/hp advantage, but I feel better about that today than I did a year ago.

I have come to realize that ITB, and if it were more widely subscribed, and saw more cars added/built raced ITC will always be very difficult for the ITAC to deal with. At the end of the day, the more lbs/hp targeted in the process, the more sensitive it is to the assumed hp going in. So we see big swings any time power gain assumptions are adjusted. That means small errors will have larger effects and it will always be tougher to "get it right". It's good to see so much effort put towards getting there though :023:.

[JeffYoung]

Thanks for the props, and also thanks for recognizing that last point.

1 hp "error" on our (the ITAC) side in either getting the stock hp right or the gain right means 17 lbs in ITB and what, 22 or something in ITC? So a 10 hp "error" in ITC is TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY POUNDS -- on a car that weighs probably 2000 to 2200 lbs.

On an ITR car? 11 lbs per hp on cars that generally weigh closer to 3000 lbs. So if we make a 10 hp error there, it's 110 lbs on a 3000 lb car.

B and C are hard for us because the downside for not getting it right is much higher.

But we do try, I promise you that.


Sorry if it came off differently, but it was meant as a positive comment. We still need to resolve the front runners that hold a significant lb/hp advantage, but I feel better about that today than I did a year ago.

I have come to realize that ITB, and if it were more widely subscribed, and saw more cars added/built raced ITC will always be very difficult for the ITAC to deal with. At the end of the day, the more lbs/hp targeted in the process, the more sensitive it is to the assumed hp going in. So we see big swings any time power gain assumptions are adjusted. That means small errors will have larger effects and it will always be tougher to "get it right". It's good to see so much effort put towards getting there though :023:.

[Racerlinn]

Not your grandma's T3 Buick racecar.... :)

http://buick2011-lease.info/images/2011-buick-regal-3.jpg

[erlrich]

give me a break earl. you know the history on the RX7 as well if not better than I do, and that's not a valid example in the least.

the neon seems to do just fine as far as i can tell. Childs was gridded right next to me at the ARRC last year in his neon....i haven't seen anything showing it can't be competitive. on track or on paper.


Travis - really? You're going to hold up a car that was a full 6 seconds off the leader's time as an example of a car that can be competitive? And as to the RX7, why isn't that a valid example? You guys are saying that every car in IT has a fighting chance at being a front-runner. I'm saying that's not the case. There have been many discussion about the cars at the front of the fields, so I'm not going to touch those, but what about the cars at the other end? What does the process do for them?

And I'll be the first to agree (and this has been stated by many more knowledgeable guys here), in most classes we have seen improvement in the number of cars that can compete at the front; but to say that every car in IT, or even every car that has been through the process, has a fighting chance is just wrong IMO. There are still the cars to have in each class, and there are still the perpetual back markers. I realize that in a class like IT, where there are relatively few cars that are developed to the limit of the rules it is hard to draw conclusions. I also know there are a lot of guys who know a helluva lot more than I do about building winning race cars who would be building some of these other cars if they had any potential at all.

All I'm saying, and it has been stated in numerous discussions before, is that the process does not focus on outcomes, it does not care about results, and it could not and does not attempt to take into consideration every factor that makes one car better than another. And as such it can never be expected to produce results that are equal; and IMO we've already seen examples of that. But, that's another discussion.

[JeffYoung]

I do agree with Travis that any car that has gone through the Process has a fighting chance.

After that, while certainly some cars have inherent advantages and disadvantages, for the most part with enough time and money and development and driver skill I think most cars in the ITCS could run up front.

It's just way smarter to push the easy button and get a proven winner.

People told Greg the NX couldn't win. Told Ron the 260 couldn't win. Told me the TR8 couldn't win. I remember when people said the ITA Miata couldn't win on power tracks. People said the 325e couldn't win. People said Corrado and GSR couldn't win in ITS since they were FWD.

Lots of "people saids" that got proven wrong by hard work and development.

[924Guy]

Lots of "people saids" that got proven wrong by hard work and development.

+1 to that - I think my car's another good example.

You can't get to the front, at least on a scene as big as the ARRC, without effort and development on the same level as the other front runners. Just because it seems like a lot to you (addressed generally, not at Jeff) doesn't mean it's on-par with the pointy end of the grid. It takes resources - time and money - knowledge, and talent.

That's why we like it.

(well, OK, so not the money part, but otherwise...)

[JeffYoung]

It is pretty astounding the level of work and effort and development that is required to run up front in IT.


+1 to that - I think my car's another good example.

You can't get to the front, at least on a scene as big as the ARRC, without effort and development on the same level as the other front runners. Just because it seems like a lot to you (addressed generally, not at Jeff) doesn't mean it's on-par with the pointy end of the grid. It takes resources - time and money - knowledge, and talent.

That's why we like it.

(well, OK, so not the money part, but otherwise...)

[Russ Myers]

No jeff. Ain't done all those things yet. Hell, just had the car out for the first time last month at CMP. I will get to them eventually, as time and money permit, but I just like to poke at hornets nests. Gee wilikers, I race a Pinto, for cryin' out loud. Obviously , my self esteem is pretty (high, low). Take your choice.

Russ
ITB Pinto #9

And I have managed to take 10lbs. of ballast off of that adjustable spacer that fits between the seat back and the steering wheel in the last two months.

[JLawton]

It is pretty astounding the level of work and effort and development that is required to run up front in IT.


I think that has been the reason for so much debating on the process. Most people do not understand what a 10/10ths car is. And remember, it's not just a 10/10ths car but a 10/10ths program!

People always blame the car.................

Andy and I have these discussions all the time............


.

[JeffYoung]

10/10ths of truth.

I certainly did not (and still don't fully) but I get it enough to know that most people complaining about someone else's car and how the weighting/classing system is unfair don't really know much about what it takes to make someone else's car run up front.


I think that has been the reason for so much debating on the process. Most people do not understand what a 10/10ths car is. And remember, it's not just a 10/10ths car but a 10/10ths program!

People always blame the car.................

Andy and I have these discussions all the time............


.

[CRallo]

The process didn't fail the Rx7, people did... simply put


Travis - really? You're going to hold up a car that was a full 6 seconds off the leader's time as an example of a car that can be competitive? And as to the RX7, why isn't that a valid example? You guys are saying that every car in IT has a fighting chance at being a front-runner. I'm saying that's not the case. There have been many discussion about the cars at the front of the fields, so I'm not going to touch those, but what about the cars at the other end? What does the process do for them?

And I'll be the first to agree (and this has been stated by many more knowledgeable guys here), in most classes we have seen improvement in the number of cars that can compete at the front; but to say that every car in IT, or even every car that has been through the process, has a fighting chance is just wrong IMO. There are still the cars to have in each class, and there are still the perpetual back markers. I realize that in a class like IT, where there are relatively few cars that are developed to the limit of the rules it is hard to draw conclusions. I also know there are a lot of guys who know a helluva lot more than I do about building winning race cars who would be building some of these other cars if they had any potential at all.

All I'm saying, and it has been stated in numerous discussions before, is that the process does not focus on outcomes, it does not care about results, and it could not and does not attempt to take into consideration every factor that makes one car better than another. And as such it can never be expected to produce results that are equal; and IMO we've already seen examples of that. But, that's another discussion.

[JeffYoung]

Using the Process, it's really a B car. Where it would probably thrive.

[gran racing]

I do agree with Travis that any car that has gone through the Process has a fighting chance.Which version of the process? <ducks>

I agree, it has a fighting chance to run toward the front as long as the top choice cars don't exist in quantity, that are also well built and well driven. Regardless, there are still cars which have proven itself to run at the front, and there are cars which do quite well within the confines of the process even if not driven the best.


on the same level as the other front runners.I've often thought it would be interesting to see a graph that illustrates how driver talent versus the car built (prep level, and car picked) would work out. I know that's not possible to do, unfortunately.

The "process" is FAR from perfect. It only takes a few things into consideration, and not nearly enough to get close to that perfection status. With the number of makes and models out there, that would be an enormous feet. But hey, it's Club Racing and it's too broad of a scope. As it's been said before, it's about getting it close and having a fighting chance. I've always thought that I'm cool with having to be a bit of a better driver than the next guy, but don't put a freakin' anchor on the damn car so there's no way it could win. But of course we'll always want more, after all this is racing.

[Ron Earp]

Using the Process, it's really a B car. Where it would probably thrive.


Was consideration given to putting the 12A RX7 in B? Seems like a perfect fit. Be a bit heavier than it is now in IT7/SRX7 I'd suppose but sure sounds interesting for B competition.

What happens if you run it through the current process (taking into account it is a voodoo motor)?

[Eagle7]

Using the Process, it's really a B car. Where it would probably thrive.
Seems like the perfect candidate for dual classification.

[CRallo]

this is an old issue... a lot of discussion exists elsewhere on the forum for anyone interested in reading up



Seems like the perfect candidate for dual classification.

I agree with this


Was consideration given to putting the 12A RX7 in B? Seems like a perfect fit. Be a bit heavier than it is now in IT7/SRX7 I'd suppose but sure sounds interesting for B competition.

What happens if you run it through the current process (taking into account it is a voodoo motor)?

the issue supposedly was cage rules and the weight it would be in B was an issue for many existing cars :/

I did the math recently and it works out to about a 40 or 45 percent gain IIRC!!! lol

[Greg Amy]

Final is up:

http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastrack/11/11-fastrack-may.pdf

[wepsbee]

My sister and I have Ford Escort GT's in the ITA class. We have been told by a few drivers and builders that this is not a competitive car in ITA. We just keep on trying
and have a bunch of fun along the way.

[rsportvolvo]

Nothing on the Volvo 240 re-process. Any updates?

[JeffYoung]

Still being discussed David - we are looking at all of the ITB Volvos, and still collecting some data. Thanks for your patience on this. I know you have been waiting a while.

[gran racing]

Even I was a bit surprised to hear that the 240 is rumored to gain an extra 130 lbs. Oh well. :D

[CRallo]

You scared me for a second Dave! lol

[rsportvolvo]

Still being discussed David - we are looking at all of the ITB Volvos, and still collecting some data. Thanks for your patience on this. I know you have been waiting a while.

Thanks for the feedback.

[lateapex911]

Was consideration given to putting the 12A RX7 in B? Seems like a perfect fit. Be a bit heavier than it is now in IT7/SRX7 I'd suppose but sure sounds interesting for B competition.

What happens if you run it through the current process (taking into account it is a voodoo motor)?

The ITAC doesn't like dual classification. It's not my first choice either, but I could be talked into it in certain cases. (ITR cars from ITS, for example).

The RX7: About half the cars, as near as we could tell, would have needed new cages when the move to B was discussed. ALL the cars would have to get rid of their wheels and tires, ($$$) and find new 6 x 13" wheels and tires ($$$)

And, it really isn't competitive in A (except 1 car, of, what, a thousand country wide over the years(?)and even then, there's never been one that ran really up front at the ARRCs, but....)...so applying the same numbers in B would yield the same results.

Now, IF it weren't saddled with the factor it currently has in A when it were to be moved to B, then maybe it could do OK. Right now, a very well driven well prepped 7 is juuuusst ahead of top ITB guys. Add the 350lbs though, and forget about that!

So, when it was discussed, there was the Process issue, and the cage issue, and the wheel issue. In the end, my thinking was, "Why bother jumping through so many hoops at such great expense when the ITAC will just apply the same factor and it will be a backmarker in B?"

[ajmr2]

It was great to finally get 95 lbs off the ITB MR2 at the beginning of this season, which was a good step in the right direction, but I have to say I'm stunned by the weight adjustments on some of these cars. Kinda feel like we're back to square one with the car as the Hondas & VWs literally disappear over the horizon.

[Knestis]

Remember that you're still getting dinked by the 1.3 multiplier. I submitted a request that the MkIII Golf get reviewed, fully expecting that it should GAIN about 50#. That should contribute to some additional parity.

K

[Chip42]

Remember that you're still getting dinked by the 1.3 multiplier. I submitted a request that the MkIII Golf get reviewed, fully expecting that it should GAIN about 50#. That should contribute to some additional parity.

K

the current ITB (AW11) MR2 classification follows the published process math for a 25% gain perfectly. it WAS at 30%, the differnece being 95 lbs. we now have "parity" with the baseline number. the car needs some time at this level to build the case further that it's still too heavy. I hope that one day everyone will be on really equal footing but "pretty close" is a good target too, and I'm happy to see progress on multiple fronts toward that.

[Knestis]

ORLY...? Sorry - I guess I'm behind the curve on that.

K

[lateapex911]

the current ITB (AW11) MR2 classification follows the published process math for a 25% gain perfectly. it WAS at 30%, the differnece being 95 lbs. we now have "parity" with the baseline number. the car needs some time at this level to build the case further that it's still too heavy. I hope that one day everyone will be on really equal footing but "pretty close" is a good target too, and I'm happy to see progress on multiple fronts toward that.

Chip, normally I agree with your points, but here I don't.
You're suggesting that 'we see how it does".

Well, that sounds way too 'prod like' for me.
I suggested when I was on the ITAC, and since, that there is AMPLE evidence that this car can't come CLOSE to the gains the process predicts. I AM grateful the ITAC and CRB somehow busted out of the whole 30% scam, but, as far as I'm concerned, this car is still being dealt a disservice.

[Flyinglizard]

Ihave the mk 3
Golf @ 2400 , to match the mk 2. (based on RPM, cam, and compression)
The MR2 has very little left @ 7000rpm, from the factory,. It doesnt go any faster than stock, maybe 8hp with a header and some chip help.
MM

[Chip42]

Chip, normally I agree with your points, but here I don't.
You're suggesting that 'we see how it does".

Well, that sounds way too 'prod like' for me.
I suggested when I was on the ITAC, and since, that there is AMPLE evidence that this car can't come CLOSE to the gains the process predicts. I AM grateful the ITAC and CRB somehow busted out of the whole 30% scam, but, as far as I'm concerned, this car is still being dealt a disservice.

My position as an MR2 guy is that I'm glad there was some movement, period. do I think that it's likely to be the last movement we see, while we know the car to still be heavy? I worry that it might be, yes.

the large port 4AGE makes maybe 12% gains in IT, on a good day with a BIG wallet. thats pretty well known, though I understand there's still some uncertainty in the data presented. the formulae are in place to make process adjustments of power to weight and have the car land square on the target. but there's some fear about it (atlantic motor, "the deal", whatever). If having it sit at the process default position (+25%) for a while will help calm the fears and allow further discussion, I'm good with that. if it's a gimme to shut up the 4AG crowd by some who know full well that it still can't be competitive at this weight but are being protectionist, well I've no patience for that. I'm willing to believe the former.

I am not "satisfied" by the current weight. My previous post could have been worded differently, I see where you're coming from.

[quadzjr]

I feel the same as AJ. how much data was presented to get the cars recently changed? I admit they are/were heavy. however in teh CRX's case they were closer to the spec weight than the MR2. I have challenged ANYONE to come up with valid data finding the information that I presented to the ITAC false. A dozen dyno plots were presented, some of prod level one a full tilt buggie 10/10ths build (making 108whp which like mentioned above is below 15% and below 20%).

If you have a person that is open with their information, has an open invitation to prove them wrong, and still believe that I might be trying to do something in moral?

The new classification is not even close to what should be,"closer" is a better word, I appreciate all that have listened to me on the ITAC, CRB, and BOD. Yes the MR2 will be more competitive. But the numbers do not lie. Yes Power to weight is not the end all be all of a competitive car, but it does play a role, a large role. It is physics that governs how and what our cars do on a track. Using the CRX as an example you reduce the weight of the CRX by more weight than the MR2 (which you couldn't keep up with before.) So as far as competition level goes between the CRX and the MR2 the performace gap between the two has increased. Both needed the weight brake.. Just don't see why I worked so hard to get the result I did, compared to what others have. I am sure that others on the CRX side of the boat say they cannot get 30% with big $$$ or even if they only get 25%. that pust them either 0-5% off potential.. Even with money the MR2 is 13% off it's classed expected gain. For those that think that is not that big of a deal. roughly every 5% equals 95lbs of balast on the car.. so if the car is roghly 12-13% off it maxium recorded IT build.. you can do the math.

IMHO MR2 should be classed at 15%.. it couldn't get down to that weight very easily at all.. mine is 2340 with driver and no balast.. but that is another story.

Jsut finished my engine build.. full 10/10ths build.. (couldn't believe how much I paid for "custom" piston rings to try to gain a few tenths of a hp :() going to dyno next week. hoping to get 108whp! fingers crossed.

/end rant.

(Yes I know that in code speak that says end end rant.. )

[lateapex911]

I hear ya! ITB is a funny place for some reason.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes Power to weight is not the end all be all of a competitive car, but it does play a role, a large role.

And it's what the whole Process is based on.

[quadzjr]

And it's what the whole Process is based on.

That is why I have faith and believe in the process.. Maybe it is the engineer in me? However, data out is only good data in. I tried during both yours and Josh's terms to be as open and as helpfull as possible. Since the weight break I have kinda given up.. I guess that is what some wanted me to do. I know we all are probably tired of my broken record.. I am too. I spent many many hours and days gathering data, time on the dyno, making calls to all sorts of people for any insight or knoledge, and talking to anybody would listen.. IMHO I have proved what the car can make in IT trim, and submited a somewhat engineering paper on it to the ITAC. Maybe a different result would of come from a more inffluncial person? Maybe a signed and notary sealed paper from the top 4AGE builder in the country (joking.. but would persue it if I thought it would help)?

I submited as much data as possible. showing not only numbers below 25% (or 30% as was the percent at the time) but below 10% in most cases.

it is fairly well documented in that reguard.. header,CAI (as best you can), fresh rebuild will net you between 103 and 106 hp. If you have a ECU you can get up to 108 hp.. (only one person has done this and in addition to utilized "grey area" but in my opinion cheating to do so.)

So why was the process not used as written and a 15% or 20% not applied? It may have already been said on here. I have heard of the reasons for why it was stuck at 30%, I am glad that is over.

Once again thank you to all that listened.. maybe one day I will have enough time and energy to try again. But, as of right now I am out of ideas on anything else to do. Other than buying a different car.

[quadzjr]

Ihave the mk 3
Golf @ 2400 , to match the mk 2. (based on RPM, cam, and compression)
The MR2 has very little left @ 7000rpm, from the factory,. It doesnt go any faster than stock, maybe 8hp with a header and some chip help.
MM

just an FYI, and a sad and laughable truth, but the when installing a header (say a TRD for example) you often find you will see no gains or loose 1 hp. A custom header built on a dyno will give you a better curve and easier to drive, but little to no hp gain for the expense involved. Talked to burns stainless and they used there header program. I have also done the math to guesitmate the lengths for the harmonics, as well as the 3rd degree equations for gas accelerations to determine size and diameter (keeping the speed of sound constant even though it does change with temperature.. so sue me:rolleyes:) I was happy to see I got nearly the exact same result as burns program within 0.5". No chip available for the MR2 computer, however you can do some work to increase RPM limit but it also adversely affects other aspects.

I have no idea why I cannot be consise.. I blame Chip.

[lateapex911]

Steve, for what it's worth, the MR2 situation was one of my biggest peeves when I was on the ITAC. Looking back, I accidentally used the wrong factor that infamous night in the Watkins Glen hotel room, when I was running the con call and acting as secretary in Andy's absence, BUT, I know darn well that if I had used the 'RIGHT' factor (25%) there were those on the call who would have spoken right up and said "hold on there, boy, that cars a 4 valve, and 4 valvers get 30% in ITB!".

So, realistically speaking while I feel bad for this in some ways, I know it would have been at 30% anyway.:shrug:

Those on the ITAC also know that I argued that the car should REALLY have a 15% or, reasonably a 20% factor. I felt the case was made effectively. But it never got to the point where we could have a confidence vote while I was there. It was stuck at 30%.

I give credit to Josh (I presume) for breaking the logjam that was the ridiculous "30% deal"....but, I don't know if they had a review of the evidence or not to arrive at 25%. The old days of the ITAC being more open seem to have passed, and internal votes and records aren't being disclosed.

If I were still onboard, I'd be arguing for 20%, as the evidence I've seen has given me enough confidence that it's a reasonable number. (I admit even that is high, but that's a conservative position, and one that I'd take with confidence, knowing I'd never get agreement on less)

But...ITB has been fought over hard, and I worry this is a vestige of that.
Not sure what else to tell you, not that any of that makes you feel better.

[ajmr2]

IMHO MR2 should be classed at 15%.. it couldn't get down to that weight very easily at all.. mine is 2340 with driver and no balast.. but that is another story.


Thanks again Steve for all the work you put into presenting your data over the past few years. As I've said here before, I certainly appreciate all of you on the ITAC & CRB who listened to and read our "rants" and got this issue back into the daylight. The correction or adjustment or whatever it actually was is appreciated and it helped, particularly in a safety sense.
I raced my MR2 in ITA for 14 years. The ITA weight eventually was lowered to 2270. The lowest I ever got the car in ITA was 2360 with driver and no ballast. Granted I left the windows in for outside winter storage, but only one driver I know of was able to get down to 2270, how he did it I don't know. I also have raced countless laps at Summit Point and documented my lap times over the years, and even at ITA weight and a fresh engine the car would not be any threat to the current ITB front runners. Some of that is probably the driver, but dyno results make the power gains quite clear.

[gran racing]

I'm not saying the MR2 isn't still a bit heavy; don't really know at this point any more.


even at ITA weight and a fresh engine the car would not be any threat to the current ITB front runners.

Doug has done pretty well with his in the past. I know he gave me quite a bit of trouble and that was when he was using his stock motor.

It's been extremely slow going, but things are moving in the right direction. Hey, not long ago I was racing Jake Fisher in his MR2 for our mid-pack win. :) And to think the MR2 drivers gave so much resistance to moving the car to ITB. Doesn't make any of this right, just some perspective.

[ajmr2]

And to think the MR2 drivers gave so much resistance to moving the car to ITB. Doesn't make any of this right, just some perspective.

Dave, I personally don't know any MR2 drivers who were resistant. In fact, I had been advocating the move since the late 90's and encouraged others to send in letters as the MR2 slowly faded to obscurity in ITA.
Doug certainly was a hell of a driver, no doubt about it. A similar situation existed in the MARRS series in ITA last year. Miatas have been coming into ITA for a couple of years now. One Miata driver literally left the other Miatas and former ITA front runners in his dust, leaving the others shaking their heads. Track records were shattered. The car was apparently completely legal so it was all driver. Such talent evetually goes pro and the rest of us continue to duke it out with our other friends.
The point is that the process is supposed to fairly assess the build potential of any given car through known data, regardless of the driver's talent. That's all we've been asking for, and hopefully we'll get some further movement.
:eclipsee_steering:

[Chip42]

I have no idea why I cannot be consise.. I blame Chip.
Thanks buddy.:shrug: you definately have born a lot of this burden on behalf of the comunity. I almost feel sorry for getting you into these cars. almost.

I've said it before - I think 2370 is the bogey weight for the MR2: 112hp*120%*17lbs/hp+50lb (mid engined). it's close enough to actual power numbers while still being high, weight's not so low as to be unachievable (at least in the older chassis, the 88-89 cars seem much heavier) and it should make for fairly balanced on track performance due to better than class average brakes and handling. A car needs a driver, and the MR2 can reward a good one. fwiw this would put the FX16 at 2270 and the Corolla at 2320. I don't know how realistic those numbers are but I think they are not unachievable.

BUT as I said above, I think it's ok to let ITB's other major outliers get "fixed" before readdressing the 4AGE siblings. if there's not general parity, it's hard to make an argument for a specific classification (undertsanding that on-track performance isn't an input to the process)

[shwah]

ITB and ITC are going to be tough for the ITAC to get much more right, as long as they are limited to 5% increments of power adder. Most of the B cars are in the 100hp neighborhood. 5% = ~5hp = 85lbs. That is a pretty coarse adjustment IMO.

The thing is, I don't know that I feel confident in the level of data used to justify many of the power adders today, so how can we expect the process to be administered based on 2.5 or 2% increments? Now you are into the 'noise' of a given single dyno on a single day, with a single car.

The things that the process does not take into account are what will make the CRX the car to have. Small frontal area, low polar moment of inertia combined with competitive power to weight and gear spacing will make it a killer choice IMO. That said, I don't think it is reasonable for the process to take those things into account. When someone really builds one of those cars with a top flight suspension, motor, driver combo look out.

[Chip42]

ITB and ITC are going to be tough for the ITAC to get much more right, as long as they are limited to 5% increments of power adder. Most of the B cars are in the 100hp neighborhood. 5% = ~5hp = 85lbs. That is a pretty coarse adjustment IMO.

absolutely. The problem with B is the legacy and the "agreement" more than anything else - and that there are BIG HEAVY cars along with the 2200lbs super-ITC cars. ITC is (currently) very much as you describe, and the effects of a 5% change are even greater there.

also I just checked my math and I used 116 not 112 as the MR2 base power number, which is incorrect (will edit). same numbers I got above areto be had with 120%. that's being really optomistic on power but realistic about minimum weight (higher than many have managed but not by 5% at 17lb/hp).

I still think the Geo Storm GSi is the car to have at the moment.

[JeffYoung]

I can only speak for myself on the MR2. We do have a fair amount of dyno data, but (in my view) we still don't have a full title 100% IT build dyno sheet.

My personal view is the car is a 15% car. Others disagree, and without someone doing a balls to the walls full ECU tune, crank scraper, lightweight rings, exhaust dyno tested, Burns merge collector whole gee whiz shebang there will always be room for someone to legimitately say we should use the 25% default. I can't say their conclusion is outside the range of reason. I disagree with it, but I understand it.

I do not think (personally) the MR2 will get another look without the submission of new data. What that means (in my mind) is someone spends a LOT of dollars on an IT build, and is able to disclose to the ITAC exactly what they did.

This car is a poster child for what can go wrong with the Process, and it's a shame because it should be a mainstay of ITB.

[quadzjr]

I can only speak for myself on the MR2. We do have a fair amount of dyno data, but (in my view) we still don't have a full title 100% IT build dyno sheet.

My personal view is the car is a 15% car. Others disagree, and without someone doing a balls to the walls full ECU tune, crank scraper, lightweight rings, exhaust dyno tested, Burns merge collector whole gee whiz shebang there will always be room for someone to legimitately say we should use the 25% default. I can't say their conclusion is outside the range of reason. I disagree with it, but I understand it.

I do not think (personally) the MR2 will get another look without the submission of new data. What that means (in my mind) is someone spends a LOT of dollars on an IT build, and is able to disclose to the ITAC exactly what they did.

This car is a poster child for what can go wrong with the Process, and it's a shame because it should be a mainstay of ITB.

Good thing that is what I just built (engine). I already have a custom built header for the car with the correct primaries length and diameter, and a tuned ECU.

I plan on very shortly remaking the header using the same lenghts as it matches what I did matmatically and was built on teh dyno by playing with adjusting lengths.

Tomorrow I am breaking the motor in under load. Hopefully sometime this next week I am bringing it to the dyno to tune it. Following that I am going to a HPDE test with spring and shock setups end of May.

I have an idea of what I will get, and hoping for 108hp, as that isteh current record. Which way does the ITAC like to receive dyno data? using different correction factors can really change the data. My personal preference is to have all correction factors off. If I owned a 985hp supra.. I would put a massive fan in front of the car, and change the correction factor to get it to 4 digits.:D

[pfcs]

Not correcting for STP (std temp & pressure) is like using a rubber band for a ruler. WTF?

[Bill Miller]

2. #4583 (Josh Sirota) Adjust weight of first-generation Honda CRX Si
In 9.1.3, ITB, Honda CRX Si (84-87) change weight from 2130 to 1970, based on a 30% horsepower multiplier.

DAYAM! That car will truely kick @$$ at that weight... if you can make it!

hoop


And a Rabbit GTI, which starts our w/ less power, and has 4 less valves, is 110# heavier.

:dead_horse::dead_horse::dead_horse::dead_horse::d ead_horse:

[Russ Myers]

My Pinto is 400lbs. heavier. I'll just use the extra heft to knock them outa the way (when they come around to lap me).

Russ

[Flyinglizard]

The Honda has been faster than the ITB class leaders, since the begining. So dropping weight and dropping the car to B makes perfect sense.
Who comes up with this crap? Who is on the CRB for IT?

[Chip42]

And a Rabbit GTI, which starts our w/ less power, and has 4 less valves, is 110# heavier.

the listing might need looking at, I can't say (I owned one long enough to fix it and sell it, never drove it at speed) - but I will go on record as stating that the number of valves per cylinder, as a discrete variable, is not relevant. If you've been reading along for the past 3-5 years, you'll see that that logic is part of the reason ITB is so confused right now.

[Chip42]

The Honda has been faster than the ITB class leaders, since the begining. So dropping weight and dropping the car to B makes perfect sense.
Who comes up with this crap? Who is on the CRB for IT?

Mike, it's the 1st gen car, 91hp factory rating, SOHC 12V. It's been in B for a while @ 2130# (equivalent to a 41% power multiplier, which is unrelaistic if you ask those who know the car, who I presume offered such info convincingly to the ITAC. at least one is a regular poster here). Have faith in the process. once everything is run through equitably, it should all be pretty well balanced. seems to have worked in ITA through R (there will always be tweeners, it's not perfect).

If the whole balance of power in ITB is suddenly turned upside down, and the 1g CRX Si is the only thing that can win - then 2 things will happen: the classification will be corrected, and someone will make a ton of money by producing aftermarket OE-equivalent plastic fenders.

[Knestis]

The Honda has been faster than the ITB class leaders, since the begining. So dropping weight and dropping the car to B makes perfect sense.
Who comes up with this crap? Who is on the CRB for IT?

Not correct.

The "Underwood" generation Civic was the poster child for preemptive rewards weight until it was addressed while I was on the committee. The "Ruck" era Civic was added based on the new - and correct - assumptions we applied to that previous decision. The first-gen version was the last to get fixed.

In fact, evidence I saw from the inside indicated that there were clear organizational - or at least individual - biases applied to the Hondas in B "since the beginning."

K

[JeffYoung]

Correct.

Well, actually, what we did was run it through at 30% for multi-valve (3 valves) as the default in B since there was zero evidence the car made 40% or whatever it was tagged at.




Mike, it's the 1st gen car, 91hp factory rating, SOHC 12V. It's been in B for a while @ 2130# (equivalent to a 41% power multiplier, which is unrelaistic if you ask those who know the car, who I presume offered such info convincingly to the ITAC. at least one is a regular poster here). Have faith in the process. once everything is run through equitably, it should all be pretty well balanced. seems to have worked in ITA through R (there will always be tweeners, it's not perfect).

If the whole balance of power in ITB is suddenly turned upside down, and the 1g CRX Si is the only thing that can win - then 2 things will happen: the classification will be corrected, and someone will make a ton of money by producing aftermarket OE-equivalent plastic fenders.

[lateapex911]

So, Jeff, that means that 3 valve cars get 30%? because it's a multivalve? And a 4 valve car gets 'the standard" of 25%? (The recent MR2 reweighting) ???

See where this is going?

[JoshS]

Stop looking for trouble where there is none.

The standard is 30% for multivalve (more than 2/cylinder) engines.

The MR2 got that initially, but based on a lot of information, the ITAC chose to make an exception to the process.

[lateapex911]

Based on what I know, I find trouble in each of those aspects. But yea, I've made that opinion known.

It does clear up the definition of "multivalve" though.

[JeffYoung]

That is generally correct. The default gain percentage in ITB is 25%, except for multivalve (more than 2 valves per cylinder) which gets 30%. The MR2 got 25% due to evidence showing it couldn't make 30%.

If your issue is with the Accord, yes, I understand the issue and we are discussing it.

[gran racing]

except for multivalve (more than 2 valves per cylinder) which gets 30%.

I still fail to see why this is the case. I sure would love to hear the ITAC / CRB discussion on this subject. How is the conversation going, it it is being discussed?

[Knestis]

Correct.

Well, actually, what we did was run it through at 30% for multi-valve (3 valves) as the default in B since there was zero evidence the car made 40% or whatever it was tagged at.

My memory is suspect but i remember treating that as a "what we know" situation, albeit pre-confidence voting process...

K

[JeffYoung]

Dave, no offense, but I think we have sort of beat that horse to death (the 30% default). I can only speak for myself, and while I don't like it, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Kirk, I think that is right. Before my time but when I joined, as a history lesson, you recommended that I go read the thread on the ITB CRX/Civic and yes, it was eye opening.....

[gran racing]

I didn't realize a decision had been made by the ITAC on the 30% default review that I submitted. In the Sandbox thread, there certainly seemed to be many who thought it was BS and raised a few eyebrows from ITAC members. Guess I'll get some type of official reply to the request I sent on that specific issue in a Fastrack shortly? Right now the status is simply that is has been received. Sorry, didn't realize the ITAC confirmed it's ruling. (The Accord is a seperate item.)

Oh, and does this still just apply to ITB & ITC or is it now being equally applied to the other classes. :rolleyes:

I truly hate the feel of politics and inconsistency that goes on in IT and many other categories.

[CRallo]

"right" or not, the default 30% seems to work in B, it is the most competitive class in IT!

but yea, dead horse indeed...

[tnord]

I didn't realize a decision had been made by the ITAC on the 30% default review that I submitted. In the Sandbox thread, there certainly seemed to be many who thought it was BS and raised a few eyebrows from ITAC members. Guess I'll get some type of official reply to the request I sent on that specific issue in a Fastrack shortly? Right now the status is simply that is has been received. Sorry, didn't realize the ITAC confirmed it's ruling. (The Accord is a seperate item.)

Oh, and does this still just apply to ITB & ITC or is it now being equally applied to the other classes. :rolleyes:

I truly hate the feel of politics and inconsistency that goes on in IT and many other categories.

calm yourself dave.

any "politics" that you think is occuring in IT exists only in your own head.

[gran racing]

Travis - "The feel of politics" and yes, I can't help but question some items even if some they orginated a while ago and haven't been resolved. I also have finally come to terms that's just a part of this sport regardless of what level we're talking about.

And to clarify, I do honestly thing the ITAC is and has been making great progress. Unfortunately there are still areas which need to be overcome, and the "politics" might not stem from the ITAC itself.

[tnord]

all i know, and all i have influence over is what happens TODAY. not what happened 10, 5, 2, or even 1 year ago.

and TODAY there is no politicing going on. nobody is protecting their own turf, and jeff has even shown to go in the opposite direction of his specific interests. no ITAC members are out in public screaming bloody murder trying to force the CRBs hand. nobody on the ITAC has shown any desire that they are trying to move on to the CRB or any other club position. in my short time all i've seen are outcomes that have been thoroughly discussed and carefully voted upon.

heck, just last night i killed a vote because i personally had no confidence in the data that was being presented...so now we go searching for more.

[JeffYoung]

Dave, no problem -- I know this is frustrating.

I may have muddied this up some. There are two separate issues:

1. The 30% default in ITB for multi-valves is "confirmed" in the sense that it is in the IT Ops Manual and I don't see it changing. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I respect those who thought it was the right thing to do and the decision on it is "made." It certainly could be revisited but my personal belief is that it will not be.

2. The next question is whether the Accord as a 3-valve gets the default, or gets another multiplier based on "what we know." We are just starting to look into this one (I only made the first hour of the call last night so not sure where we are with it).

I hope that helps clear things up some.


I didn't realize a decision had been made by the ITAC on the 30% default review that I submitted. In the Sandbox thread, there certainly seemed to be many who thought it was BS and raised a few eyebrows from ITAC members. Guess I'll get some type of official reply to the request I sent on that specific issue in a Fastrack shortly? Right now the status is simply that is has been received. Sorry, didn't realize the ITAC confirmed it's ruling. (The Accord is a seperate item.)

Oh, and does this still just apply to ITB & ITC or is it now being equally applied to the other classes. :rolleyes:

I truly hate the feel of politics and inconsistency that goes on in IT and many other categories.

[JeffYoung]

And I do want to reiterate what Travis said about the makeup of the ITAC. Since I've been on it, I've not seen politicking or people with higher aspirations. What I've seen are folks who care about the category and not mucking it up.

I know it can appear differently sometimes, but the calls are as Travis said long discussions about what the RIGHT thing to do is.

We may not always get it right, but we do try.

[Greg Amy]

Since I've been on it, I've not seen politicking or people with higher aspirations.
Unless, of course....YOU'RE PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!!!! Yes, it all makes sense now....

Just sayin'.

;)

[Bill Miller]

Correct.

Well, actually, what we did was run it through at 30% for multi-valve (3 valves) as the default in B since there was zero evidence the car made 40% or whatever it was tagged at.

So where's the evidence that a Rabbit GTI makes the 38% it is tagged with?

[Greg Amy]

Was I the only one that saw Bill Miller as the last poster and thought, "uh oh..."

;)

[shwah]

Sounds like Bill or Brooke, or any other A1 VW guy might want to consider writing a letter.

A bunch of ex-B VWs might come back (if they could make 1950#).

[JeffYoung]

Write a request to have it reprocessed and we will look at it. I've said that before.

I know nothing about these cars, what gains the make, what the stock horsepower is, etc. If you'd like to see this changed or corrected, someone (not me, as again, I don't know anything about them) needs to step up and do the research and submit the request.



So where's the evidence that a Rabbit GTI makes the 38% it is tagged with?

[rsportvolvo]

Looks like the Volvo 240 re-process results will finally be in the next Fastrack. Not sure if the 142 re-process is included in that. At any rate I expect a reduction in weight and a possible reclassification in ITC. If that is the case ITC could be what most ITB cars get "re-processed" at. Any insight into this possible trend?

[Hoof Hearted]

Sounds like Bill or Brooke, or any other A1 VW guy might want to consider writing a letter.

A bunch of ex-B VWs might come back (if they could make 1950#).

I did in fact write a letter (#4729) and requested it be processed at the 30% gain (to stay in itb) even though it's an 8V. This would drop the weight of the 8V Scirocco II from 2130 to 1949.

[Bill Miller]

I did in fact write a letter (#4729) and requested it be processed at the 30% gain (to stay in itb) even though it's an 8V. This would drop the weight of the 8V Scirocco II from 2130 to 1949.

Brooke,

While I applaud you stepping up and writing a letter, I don't think the system is set up to request a higher multiplier than can be supported by data. Why should that car be the only 8v processed @ 30% if there is no supporting evidence to warrant it? The car should be run through the process @ 25% (again, provided that there is no supporting evidence that shows that it should be higher), and if it nets out at a weight that is deemed too light for ITB, it should be moved to ITC.

For the most part, the process should be blind as to what class a car lands in, so long as it fits a certain parameter envelope.

[shwah]

Brooke,

While I applaud you stepping up and writing a letter, I don't think the system is set up to request a higher multiplier than can be supported by data. Why should that car be the only 8v processed @ 30% if there is no supporting evidence to warrant it? The car should be run through the process @ 25% (again, provided that there is no supporting evidence that shows that it should be higher), and if it nets out at a weight that is deemed too light for ITB, it should be moved to ITC.

For the most part, the process should be blind as to what class a car lands in, so long as it fits a certain parameter envelope.

The 8V A2 is processed at 30%. My expectation is that the A1 would gain at least as much, as it has the "worlds worst" exhaust manifold - the one which when removed in favor of a dual outlet dp on the A2 resulted in a 5hp bump in oem rating.

[Bill Miller]

The 8V A2 is processed at 30%. My expectation is that the A1 would gain at least as much, as it has the "worlds worst" exhaust manifold - the one which when removed in favor of a dual outlet dp on the A2 resulted in a 5hp bump in oem rating.

Chris,

Is there supporting evidence that validates why the A2 8v VW is processed @ 30%, or is it a case of "we know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy..."? I'm pretty sure the A3 VW's are processed @ 25%. I haven't checked the A1 VW's in ITC.

I thought one of the big things w/ the new process was supposed to be documentation and supporting evidence when there were variances from the norm. Well, except for the >2 valve / cylinder ITB cars.

[shwah]

Chris,

Is there supporting evidence that validates why the A2 8v VW is processed @ 30%, or is it a case of "we know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy..."? I'm pretty sure the A3 VW's are processed @ 25%. I haven't checked the A1 VW's in ITC.

I thought one of the big things w/ the new process was supposed to be documentation and supporting evidence when there were variances from the norm. Well, except for the >2 valve / cylinder ITB cars.

The answer I received was that the ITAC "has data" that it is a 30% motor. I know mine does not, but I'm flow testing a stack of heads and intakes to see if I can eke that out of it.

The A3, if it is processed equally to the A2 on other factors, appears to be at a 22 or 23% adder.

[JeffYoung]

A3 is processed at 25%. We just voted to recommend removing the 50 lb deduct for the beam axle.

[lateapex911]

A3 is processed at 25%. We just voted to recommend removing the 50 lb deduct for the beam axle.

Bingo! well done.

[Knestis]

A3 is processed at 25%. We just voted to recommend removing the 50 lb deduct for the beam axle.

Gran owez me beerz.

K

[gran racing]

The irony is that I don't even care anymore. :lol: I'll still get you some beerz though! Okay, so I did crack a little smile. lol I really just want cars classed on a level playing field. That's been my issue all along.

[JeffYoung]

And that is the goal. Will take longer to get there than people want, and not everything will be perfect, but that is the goal.

Plus some folks have different perceptions of what is a level playing field than others.

[shwah]

Good move on the A3.

When do the competitors start sending in their +25% gain dyno sheets so that we can put more weight on them? /sarcasm

[Flyinglizard]

The A 3 needs to go up 50#, The A 2 goes down 50#.
The 8.5 - 1, A1 should go down about 80#.
What happened in the begining, was lot of A1 cars built @ 9.5 or10/1 compression , the short decks, lots off of the heads. Lightened flywheels, welded diffs,etc. The addition of good drivers made these cars fly. As a result, the rest of us are paying the price for earlier speed.
If you want to even up the cars , you need to compression check, pull the valve covers, and do a visual on the flywheels in the post race.
Just checking the cranking compression would be a great start. MM

[lateapex911]

Well, you are saying that the ITAC based the weight of the car based on what it saw in on track competition in cars built by cheaters.

A couple of your items make no difference in that scenario. Drivers. Drivers are assumed to be top notch. They are not part of the Process. Welded diffs. Open item, diffs are legal....they aren't part of the Process. Builds are assumed to be top notch 100% if the car is to be competitive.

The only remaining items are the 9.5:1 compression and the lightened flywheels and really that's only if you accept that the ITAC based it's weight on what it saw.

[Flyinglizard]

The point is, that the fastest drivers, were in the fastest , semi cheater cars, and skewd the results.
The cheater builds were pretty standard, IMHO, as I have serviced many of these cars over the 20 years. Some builders used a set standard, that they charged a lot for, for well paying car owners. The car owners could plead ignorance, as they were.
Many used the 4.22 gear, spinning the rpms to 7500. Stock ,legal cams and springs, wont do that.
The FL. scene was pretty much spec VW for a while, all sharing similar build specs.
I think that the current cars (new builds)running, are closer to the rules than the early cars./ Mine are .
I still suspect anyone running the 4.22 gear.. cant be legal and pull those rpm.
I have done some calculating for the Mk 3 vs Mk 2. cars. The #per CC /vs/ RPM range. points to the weights that I metioned. The Digi 1, Mk 3 has the best cam, but the worst controller, stock. The mega squirt benefits this car way more than the Mk 2 can race to.
The cars share close comression values and flow values. To make more power , you have to spin them higher. The Mk 3 can spin higher flow wise, but the legal valve springs and cam timing limit the car to about 6200.
About the same as the MK 2.(6400+-)
I think that the post race impound should pull the 1st place car valve cover, every race. And compression check and record the top three.
MM

[Knestis]

That's a pretty accurate summation of what got the Volvi in the pickle they're in. Remember that the Great Realignment was accomplished by indexing uncompetitive cars (by weight) to observed performance by cars that were thought to be pretty much on-target.

I absolutely concur that there's zero reason to spin a MkIII VW beyond 6000 but if we want valve covers pulled, a competitor needs to step up and get it done. We have the mechanisms in place. Heck, we had them in place "back in the day" too but we elected to generally not do use them. That's what created the situation you describe so well.

K

[downingracing]

...I think that the post race impound should pull the 1st place car valve cover, every race. And compression check and record the top three.
MM

Then write the paper and get that done for any car you believe is illegal. The cost to get those things checked (compression check & flywheel visual inspection) should be close to $0.00... If they are legal - great. You buy them a beer and move on. IF they are illegal - you got them.

It really is that easy. I believe that the folks I race with in ITA are 100% legal for the most part. I'm sure there may be some little infractions here and there, but nothing that improves performance or was done to gain an advantage. There is One car that I would question and I've talked to that driver who assured me the car is 100% legal. I am not the only one (in my class) who feels this car may not be legal. I'm not sure I buy that it is legal and if it shows up this year, I may write the paper to have a few things checked.

I welcome anyone to protest my engine - It is about due for a rebuild and I'd LOVE someone else to pay for it! :)

[lateapex911]

That's a pretty accurate summation of what got the Volvi in the pickle they're in. Remember that the Great Realignment was accomplished by indexing uncompetitive cars (by weight) to observed performance by cars that were thought to be pretty much on-target.

I absolutely concur that there's zero reason to spin a MkIII VW beyond 6000 but if we want valve covers pulled, a competitor needs to step up and get it done. We have the mechanisms in place. Heck, we had them in place "back in the day" too but we elected to generally not do use them. That's what created the situation you describe so well.

K

yes, in regards to the Volvo, it was considered to be the 'bogey car' about which the others were aligned. And it was considered to be legal.

But the VW? I didn't know that was a bogey car too. My understanding was it's weight was based on a process (kinda) hp assumption. I wasn't there, for that car, IIRC, so maybe the ITAC used 'real' and 'known' numbers that were cheated up.

(I wonder if the 1st gen RX-7 suffers a bit from that stigma. When doing it, the process numbers are assumed to be higher than I've ever seen. And folk on the iTAC assured me that's easy peasy and the cars can make that. yet all the tuners I spoke with chuckled and said "Good luck". I've tried...and I've cended up short.
yet, I can list examples until I'm blue in the face of ported cars.

Now, it's all really academic as the thing cant get much lighter than it currently is, and a Process weight for my known hp (or even a bit more)would be impossible to hit by a lot.
Se la vie, it's an old car and had it's day in the sun, like many others.)

[shwah]

I was told the A2 was also a bogey car. It's weight did not change in the GR.

[Knestis]

>> It's weight did not change in the GR.

That's the key. In essence (that's code for "oversimplified") the popular cars essentially reached parity on the track through a cheating detente - only doing what others would tolerate - and the GR aligned some "almost popular but marginalized" cars to weights that the then-ITAC thought would get them on the board.

That detente thing is managed locally remember. What was/is tolerated is different around the country. What is tolerated at the ARRC (culturally if not always in the tech shed) is different still. And we trending toward authoritarian generally, over time, as people get more persnickety about cheaters. I'd propose that this forum has had a LOT to do with that over the past 10+ years.

K

[Flyinglizard]

1994,I came from the Glen region to the CFR. I raced a ITB BMW 320I at the time. My first race @ Sebring I took 2nd or 3rd. I drove over to the scales and was told that " we dont weight @ regionals". CFR was very lax on the rules. Many VWs went by me very hard, where as up north, they went by a lot slower or not at all. ( Glen was pretty strict)
Who wants to be " That guy" who writes paper on the front running Local guys? I dont run enough races to be considered local favorite. One weekend I won 2 of the three races in my "well seasoned"( 40+races) Rocco. The next CFR newsletter came out with pics of the well known guys cars and not one of mine.
The same Rocco was accused of "too much cam" from another competitor. It was one of those rare occasions that I had a 100$ bill. I took out the bill and told the other guy to bring his car over here and lets pull VCs.
No show.
No one wants to be "that guy"
The regions need to start pulling some data from the cars.

"EMRA " added a note in the registartion papers for while that all racers should bring spare VC gaskets. That little note works wonders about cam selection, IMHO.

[CRallo]

"emra " added a note in the registartion papers for while that all racers should bring spare vc gaskets. That little note works wonders about cam selection, imho.

*like*

[downingracing]

The system is setup to self-police. I don't want to be 'that guy' either, but if I talk to someone I believe is cheating and they say they are legal, then I can write the paper. I'm not talking stupid (to me) stuff - I'm talking cams, flywheel - performance items.

This is all just for fun and some folks take it way too serious. I don't care if you have a washer bottle... I know it would be against thr rules (and I have one), but I just don't care. The little things that don't really matter don't bother me. But don't bring a 13:1 motor or run slicks.

I know that (almost) all the guys who beat me are either better drivers, have better equipment or beat me because I made a mistake. I'm fine with all of the above. I'm confident in saying that no one has more fun on a race weekend than I do. On and Off the track - I LOVE race weekends!!!

I'll be at Mid-Ohio next weekend - Looking forward to a GREAT weekend (Thursday to Sunday) at the track. I'm sure I'm not going to win, but I'll have a blast having FUN!

[shwah]

No one wants to be that guy. I have found that if you are willing to be that guy, and politely communicate that to those that you believe to be hoping 'that guy' isn't there that weekend, you can fix the problem before the race and/or paper comes into play.

[lateapex911]

No one wants to be "that guy"
The regions need to start pulling some data from the cars.

.

I say this generally, not aimed at anyone in particular....
Why should the regions do that when we're too wimpy to?

Nobody wants to do the work, but I can't accept complaining if the complainer hasn't stepped up and tried to handle the situation. Is it easy? Nope. But that's not a good reason. If we want legal cars, WE must demand that from ourselves. Not point fingers at our Stewards and have them do it.

[gran racing]

Oh come on Jake. You guys had the resources in brain trust and what happened? If that didn't result in a reasonable protest, I sure as hell know anything I do wouldn't.

I like the whole threat aspect, but the guys who are "cheating it right" won't be afraid of the stupid and easy stuff. Although I do like the idea of a threat even if as silly as open hoods at impound.

[lateapex911]

Yes, we had a well prepared protest. But the Protest Stewards acted in unacceptable manners. THAT part was the part we did not foresee, and I was unprepared with appropriate responses. Trust me, I would handle that aspect differently now.
Regardless, the end result was as designed.

So, it worked as it was supposed to. But, I don't consider that a typical protest by any means.

The point remains, the vehicle is there to be used. If somebody is cheating, it's up to US to react and rectify it, and there are numerous ways to do that, including protesting.
If we just complain about it, well, that's our fault and we have no right to utter a peep.

[Bill Miller]

yes, in regards to the Volvo, it was considered to be the 'bogey car' about which the others were aligned. And it was considered to be legal.

But the VW? I didn't know that was a bogey car too. My understanding was it's weight was based on a process (kinda) hp assumption. I wasn't there, for that car, IIRC, so maybe the ITAC used 'real' and 'known' numbers that were cheated up.

(I wonder if the 1st gen RX-7 suffers a bit from that stigma. When doing it, the process numbers are assumed to be higher than I've ever seen. And folk on the iTAC assured me that's easy peasy and the cars can make that. yet all the tuners I spoke with chuckled and said "Good luck". I've tried...and I've cended up short.
yet, I can list examples until I'm blue in the face of ported cars.

Now, it's all really academic as the thing cant get much lighter than it currently is, and a Process weight for my known hp (or even a bit more)would be impossible to hit by a lot.
Se la vie, it's an old car and had it's day in the sun, like many others.)

Jake,

I thought you were on the ITAC during the GR, no? I've heard everything from one of the ITAC members that was a "VW guy" had seen an A1 GTI that made 100 hp at the wheels to they weren't going to take more than 100# off of any car. Coincidence or not, the A1 GTI dropped 100# (2180# to 2080#), which is still high, even if it did make 100hp at the wheels. 100hp at the wheels works out to ~30% gain, which if you use that, the car processes out at ~1940# for ITB. Based on the current 2080# weight, the car processes out at ~39% gain.

[lateapex911]

I joined during the GR. They'd gone over the VW on the previous call, IIRC.

Sadly, i don't think you can go back on a forum and research that anymore.

[Spinnetti]

Preliminary:

http://cms.scca.com/documents/2011%20Tech/Preliminary%20May%20TB%20Fastrack%20_2_.pdf

Greg, sorry for the hijack, and I know I should probably know this, but who do I contact/write to about classing? My car (Corolla GTS) got dumped to ITB with 220lb of ballast added to it. I probably have the First Corolla run in ITA of this year, most developed, and probably one of the last of these, and Its been a race car for 22years. I'm just not going to race with the scca that way. I'm trying to find out if I can just run some kind of open class or stay in ITA... I'll know wether I've "won" or not, and don't need the plastic trophies.

Thnx

[Spinnetti]

Do you have....data acquisition? spring testing? what rates are you running? shocks? welded rear end or a good clutch pack set up? lightened the car to the max and then ballasted it? crank scraper in the motor? .040 over? nice 1" gasket match port job? .5 compression bump? Lightweight low drag piston rings? Lightweight oils in the tranny and diff? Brake ducting? Experimented with different pad compounds? hours on the dyno to tune carbs and timing?

2.3 liters in ITB (or 2.0, or whatever it is) is a lot of displacement. That car will have some handling issues but it seems to me with the displacement, ok aero, and RWD it could be made competitive with a lot of work.

I've been there. I had a dead slow ITS car that no one thought could run up front and with a ton of work I got there. But it was a TON of work.

lol... I did each and every one of the tuning things you mentioned and then some. Then they added over 200lb of ballast to it because its screaming 1.6l 112hp engine was too much of a threat I guess.... I think the system is retarded. Objective or not, if you want real racing, make restrictor adjustments annually based on the last years race results. IT has always been lopsided. Drive the "It" car or watch from the back. First Rx7s, then the damn Hondas, then whatever...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Greg, sorry for the hijack, and I know I should probably know this, but who do I contact/write to about classing? My car (Corolla GTS) got dumped to ITB with 220lb of ballast added to it. I probably have the First Corolla run in ITA of this year, most developed, and probably one of the last of these, and Its been a race car for 22years. I'm just not going to race with the scca that way. I'm trying to find out if I can just run some kind of open class or stay in ITA... I'll know wether I've "won" or not, and don't need the plastic trophies.

Thnx

What year Corolla?

[Andy Bettencourt]

lo I think the system is retarded. Objective or not, if you want real racing, make restrictor adjustments annually based on the last years race results. IT has always been lopsided. Drive the "It" car or watch from the back. First Rx7s, then the damn Hondas, then whatever...

No way in heck. THAT is the worst possible thing to do. You want weight added to your mid-packer based on a dominant car posting track records in the Northeast (or wherever)?

Look at the class, see the weights, estimate your potential and choose a car. Have fun.

[JoshS]

Greg, sorry for the hijack, and I know I should probably know this, but who do I contact/write to about classing? My car (Corolla GTS) got dumped to ITB with 220lb of ballast added to it. I probably have the First Corolla run in ITA of this year, most developed, and probably one of the last of these, and Its been a race car for 22years. I'm just not going to race with the scca that way. I'm trying to find out if I can just run some kind of open class or stay in ITA... I'll know wether I've "won" or not, and don't need the plastic trophies.

Thnx

It's probably legal for ITE in your region (where is that?) as-is, if you want to race it there. You'd need to check the region rules to be sure.

You can submit letters to the CRB at http://www.crbscca.com.

I believe you have mentioned in the past that you could never get your car anywhere near the minimum weight listed in ITA, right? The idea here is that this should now be a competitive, achieveable weight in ITB. It's not a punishment, it's an opportunity to run at the front of its listed class.

[Lael Cleland]

I feel the weight is very close for ITB... We have some good competition here! I race a A1 GTI, STD new pistons, not a full tilt IT head, never been on a dyno & tuned, but it has Spherical bearing c-arms, 4.25 fd, Peloquin lsd, running on Nito NT01's... When it finishes a race its constantly in the top 3... If I had the time & money to place my toe nails on edge of the rules, the car or the car & I, would be on top.

There are generally 12-15 ITB cars at our races, 15ish ITA cars, the best part is no matter how fast you are, you have some one to race! To me and my other racing buddies this is the best place to be! so if you leave your helmet 20 miles from the track and miss Qual, you might have the most fun race ever battling with your old instructor & the guy you sold your ITA 16v scirocco too. It took me a while, but I am not in it to win it, just fun!

"I go to the track for the party & People, getting to race a car is just a bonus"!

[Greg Amy]

If you're a "run whatcha brung" class kinda guy, look at Super Touring Light. Your 1.6 will weigh 2080 pounds, and you can do more mods.

But the IT system is what it is, and well established.

GA

[Charlie Broring]

But the IT system is what it is, and well established.

GA
This statement is untrue. The IT system changed dramatically with the introduction of "The Process". Better or worse depends on your perspective. The current classification process was only established a few years ago and is just now being implemented. The number of club members who are dissatisfied with or adversely effected by the changes is far greater then the ITAC cares to acknowledge.

[tnord]

there is a whole world outside of summit point charlie.

[Greg Amy]

Charlie, I think IT is a really nice, organized slot between the Showroom Stock/Touring crowd and Super Touring/Production. "We have too many classes" arguments aside, if you want a long-established, consistent, structured, categorization system, IT provides that. If you want more flexibility on mods, wings, and more "whatcha brung", Super Touring provides you that. If you want slicks and active competition management, Production provides you that.

I've seen the history of IT evolve over three decades, and by far the biggest cultural change was The Great Realignment, a movement that started about a decade ago and was put into practice about 5 years ago. That length of time, in any racing org's history, can easily be considered "established" (hell, some classes never last that long!) And all it did was attempt to put a repeatable, consistent blanket over a random process that was already in place.

Yeah, some people gained, and some people lost, but at least everyone pretty much now understands going in where they stand. And that is a good thing.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

This statement is untrue. The IT system changed dramatically with the introduction of "The Process". Better or worse depends on your perspective. The current classification process was only established a few years ago and is just now being implemented. The number of club members who are dissatisfied with or adversely effected by the changes is far greater then the ITAC cares to acknowledge.

More like 7-8 years ago now. The current system is really not much different other than policy.

The perception of IT is SOOOOO much better now that the 'building-sized' dart board has been torn down and a standard sized one has replaced it.

Trying to use 15 mildly-prepped cars all running the same lap times from decades ago has NOTHING to do with how well they were classed, just how well your group was 'the same'.

[Chip42]

My car (Corolla GTS) got dumped to ITB with 220lb of ballast added to it. I probably have the First Corolla run in ITA of this year, most developed

The MR2 with the same engine just lost 95lbs from its original ITB weight and that will trickle to the other 4AGE cars like yours (so you should only have 105# of ballast). I already wrote that letter because I like to help out like that.

These cars stood no chance in ITA even if they could reach their classified weight. Moving to ITB was a favor to all of us (we have a few MR2s). Are they too heavy? you can search up pages and pages of discussion where the bulk of the posts say yes, it is.

Based on what I know, I say that it's a 12% motor, and I think it should be classed at 115%, or 2190# base in ITB. that would be your weight if i were king. The current classifications are 125%/2430# for the MR2 and 130% for the FX16 at 2445# and Corolla GTS at 2475#.

Being TOO HEAVY is good! Unlike being too light, you can work to correct the situation and loose some of that weight by building the case for the car. Please present build info and dyno numbers to the ITAC using the links at http://www.crbscca.com to help in these efforts. Having a non-MR2, "most developed" 4AGE car will be a welcome addition to the piles of data they already have that are admittedly MR2 centric. and will help all of the 4AGE crowd to loose their shiny new ballast.

[JeffYoung]

"It" car? I think IT has been really good about avoiding that. Right now, you have many chassis to chose from to run up front, if you have the talent and prep skills:

ITS: 944S, E30, 240/260z, 240sx, 280zx, 300zx, RX7, Miata, TR8, Integra, Corrado, Prelude.
ITA: Integra, 240sx, Miata, CRX, SE-R/NX2000.
ITB: 924, 2002, Volvo 142, A3 Golf, Civic, CRX, Accord.

"200 lbs of ballast were added" to what, when? The 4AGE cars were moved to be because of repeated requests/information that they couldn't make power/weight in ITA.

I'd like to see these cars be competitive, so help me out with your build, and your real beef with things.


lol... I did each and every one of the tuning things you mentioned and then some. Then they added over 200lb of ballast to it because its screaming 1.6l 112hp engine was too much of a threat I guess.... I think the system is retarded. Objective or not, if you want real racing, make restrictor adjustments annually based on the last years race results. IT has always been lopsided. Drive the "It" car or watch from the back. First Rx7s, then the damn Hondas, then whatever...

[JeffYoung]

Completely incorrect and not really worth the time any more to argue about.


This statement is untrue. The IT system changed dramatically with the introduction of "The Process". Better or worse depends on your perspective. The current classification process was only established a few years ago and is just now being implemented. The number of club members who are dissatisfied with or adversely effected by the changes is far greater then the ITAC cares to acknowledge.

[JLawton]

" Right now, you have many chassis to chose from to run up front, if you have the talent and prep skills:

ITA: Integra, 240sx, Miata, CRX, SE-R/NX2000.
.


You're killin' me Jeff!!!! No Saturn?

:D



if IT is in such shambles why is it the highest prescribed class behind the Miata's?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Based on what I know, I say that it's a 12% motor, and I think it should be classed at 115%, or 2270# base in ITB. that would be your weight if i were king. The current classifications are 125%/2430# for the MR2 and 130% for the FX16 at 2445# and Corolla GTS at 2475#.


15% is the number for me. If I were king:

FX16: 2145lbs
GTS: 2190lbs
MR2: 2240lbs

legend: -2% on FX, GTS stays same, MR2 gets 50lbs for mid engine

[Spinnetti]

It's probably legal for ITE in your region (where is that?) as-is, if you want to race it there. You'd need to check the region rules to be sure.

You can submit letters to the CRB at http://www.crbscca.com.

I believe you have mentioned in the past that you could never get your car anywhere near the minimum weight listed in ITA, right? The idea here is that this should now be a competitive, achieveable weight in ITB. It's not a punishment, it's an opportunity to run at the front of its listed class.

Thanks for the info.

My car was exactly on the original minimum weight of 2030 with 1 gallon of gas, and after cage revisions and whatnot to keep up with rules, the current weight with me in it was exactly on the new minimum weight with driver prior to getting moved to ITB. I could maybe get 50lb more out by dipping the tub to get rid of undercoating and removing non-required cage tubes, but realistically, I doubt it could get any lighter, so I understand that setting a lighter weight just wouldn't be meaningful unless I subbed a 100lb driver. I'm pretty sure my car was the first ITA 85 Corolla and was used to set that minimum weight.

I'd literally have to add over 220lb of ballast to run ITB. This car has had way too much development over the last 20 years to get it where it is only to throw it all away. I'd pretty much have to run it in stock trim to make weight - even then would need ballast. Old enough for vintage? Just run it as is in Prod? I kinda feel pushed out. Its WAY too nice to dump to the drift/rice crowd. I guess I could sell it to somebody to run ITB, or run ITE, then just compare how I finish with the ITA cars.. I should be faster than the ITB guys, and at least mid pack or better in ITA.... (I'd only finished out of the top 5 once in all the years I've had it - at the IT fest) Well, at least there's some options.

[Spinnetti]

If you're a "run whatcha brung" class kinda guy, look at Super Touring Light. Your 1.6 will weigh 2080 pounds, and you can do more mods.

But the IT system is what it is, and well established.

GA

I'm not exactly a run what you brung kind of guy, I'm a run what I like developed to the hilt to see how good my engineering and driving is. Used to be plenty good enough.

Thanks for the STL info.. Like I said, I've been out a while, so that sounds like a winner. Since my car is 2030, I only need a bit of ballast, and more mods sounds fun. I got used to running the speeds I did, and getting pulled down to A1 GTI speeds (no offense to the vedub guys) would be horrible - I'd feel like I was pulling a parachute!

Having run IT in the same car for nearly 20 years, its constantly changing, constantly creeping, but I guess time marches on....

[JeffYoung]

With all due respect I think that statement speaks volumes for the competiveness of the car.

You've clearly got it well developed and I'm sure it is well driven. But when you ran against the very best ITA cars in the country (or some of them) it was a tough row to hoe.

I'm on the ITAC and with the data I saw, did not think the car could run competitvely in ITA at any realistically achievable spec weight (I'm talking about the MR2 -- are you saying you could make the Process weight in the Corolla in ITA? If so that is somethign for us to consider).

A lot of cars run a couple hundred pounds ballast. It can be an advantage since you are able to put the weight where you want it using cage, cool suit, lead in the passenger floor, etc.

I hate that you are giving up on IT. We made the move to ITB because we thought it would enhance the competitiveness of the car. And, honestly, you say you think the car would be faster than other ITB cars -- in your region. I'd invite you to come to the ARRC and run against the Keanes, Underwood, Ruck, Knestis, Vaughan Scott, etc.

Jeff L -- sorry dude, I forgot you had that thing winning championships in probably the most competitive ITA region in the country. DEFINITELY add the Saturn to that list.


(I'd only finished out of the top 5 once in all the years I've had it - at the IT fest) Well, at least there's some options.

[Spinnetti]

The MR2 with the same engine just lost 95lbs from its original ITB weight and that will trickle to the other 4AGE cars like yours (so you should only have 105# of ballast). I already wrote that letter because I like to help out like that.

These cars stood no chance in ITA even if they could reach their classified weight. Moving to ITB was a favor to all of us (we have a few MR2s). Are they too heavy? you can search up pages and pages of discussion where the bulk of the posts say yes, it is.

Based on what I know, I say that it's a 12% motor, and I think it should be classed at 115%, or 2190# base in ITB. that would be your weight if i were king. The current classifications are 125%/2430# for the MR2 and 130% for the FX16 at 2445# and Corolla GTS at 2475#.

Being TOO HEAVY is good! Unlike being too light, you can work to correct the situation and loose some of that weight by building the case for the car. Please present build info and dyno numbers to the ITAC using the links at http://www.crbscca.com to help in these efforts. Having a non-MR2, "most developed" 4AGE car will be a welcome addition to the piles of data they already have that are admittedly MR2 centric. and will help all of the 4AGE crowd to loose their shiny new ballast.

Hmm... I imagine so... I've been thinking about a dyno run. To be honest, except for a couple races where I was going for the 110% tune and totally screwed up, I've never run with the MR2s, but not sure if there were any that time that were as developed as the Corolla, so maybe hard to say (I've had two MR2's also, one with a 165hp 20v vvt motor too). Motor is .040 over, balanced, pulley, match ported... all the legal stuff.

[Spinnetti]

"It" car? I think IT has been really good about avoiding that. Right now, you have many chassis to chose from to run up front, if you have the talent and prep skills:

ITS: 944S, E30, 240/260z, 240sx, 280zx, 300zx, RX7, Miata, TR8, Integra, Corrado, Prelude.
ITA: Integra, 240sx, Miata, CRX, SE-R/NX2000.
ITB: 924, 2002, Volvo 142, A3 Golf, Civic, CRX, Accord.

"200 lbs of ballast were added" to what, when? The 4AGE cars were moved to be because of repeated requests/information that they couldn't make power/weight in ITA.

I'd like to see these cars be competitive, so help me out with your build, and your real beef with things.

I hear you.. Sorry for generalizing about IT - I've just been running here a long time and that's what it feels like.

The move to ITB adds around 220lb to my exactly on weight ITA Corolla... that's just too much weight to add back. I know the MR2 wasn't close. My car couldn't run with the top Honda guys anymore either, but I could still run in the top pack. My car is built to the full limit of the rules and I've had 19 years practice driving and tuning it - not exactly representative I admit. When there was the noise to move the MR2 down, I chimed in then.. It was probably the right move for the MR2, but I sure didn't want to move down. As somebody mentioned, I'll look at STL and see if that's a fit.

[Greg Amy]

...I'll look at STL and see if that's a fit.
Just keep in mind that Super Touring is a whole 'nother step on the modifications/development/tuning ladder. If you're averse to changes to re-do/re-learn in ITB, you may be a bit put-off by having to compete against approaching-200whp 2340# Acura Integras and Mazda Miatas...we'd welcome you over, but be sure you understand what you're getting into first... - GA

[StephenB]

Your the reason I wish these "tweeners" could be dual classed at two weights. It creates choices, possibly double dipping, and has no harm on the club other than an extra line in the gcr.

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

Your the reason I wish these "tweeners" could be dual classed at two weights. It creates choices, possibly double dipping, and has no harm on the club other than an extra line in the gcr.
Plus a big one. I've been a fan of dual-classification even before we did it with the E36, and I really haven't seen cats and dogs living together since we did. Actually, I think it has created nice competition in both classes and, ultimately, answered its own question.

What's it gonna take for the ITAC and CRB to consider dual classification more widely? Really, where's the harm in it? Let the participants make that decision.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'd literally have to add over 220lb of ballast to run ITB. This car has had way too much development over the last 20 years to get it where it is only to throw it all away. I'd pretty much have to run it in stock trim to make weight - even then would need ballast. Old enough for vintage? Just run it as is in Prod? I kinda feel pushed out. Its WAY too nice to dump to the drift/rice crowd. I guess I could sell it to somebody to run ITB, or run ITE, then just compare how I finish with the ITA cars.. I should be faster than the ITB guys, and at least mid pack or better in ITA.... (I'd only finished out of the top 5 once in all the years I've had it - at the IT fest) Well, at least there's some options.

I still don't get why you think you would be throwing it all away. You add some weight and run with a slower group. You get closer to the target power to weight for the class and you are getting pushed out? Heck no.

Post some pics and a price......

[spawpoet]

I'd literally have to add over 220lb of ballast to run ITB. This car has had way too much development over the last 20 years to get it where it is only to throw it all away. I'd pretty much have to run it in stock trim to make weight - even then would need ballast. Old enough for vintage? Just run it as is in Prod? I kinda feel pushed out. Its WAY too nice to dump to the drift/rice crowd. I guess I could sell it to somebody to run ITB, or run ITE, then just compare how I finish with the ITA cars.. I should be faster than the ITB guys, and at least mid pack or better in ITA...


If you think you'd be faster than the ITB cars without the ballst, you darned sure should be competitive in the class with the 220lbs added. Do you just not want to run in ITB? It sounds like the car isn't going to be as uncompetitive in ITB as it was in ITA.

[JeffYoung]

One: It's an entirely subjective opinion I have that it confuses things, particularly prospective new members, and really isn't needed. For the most part, all of the "tweeners" have been shown to be "better" in one class or the other, and there really aren't that many of them.

But on this point, if membership truly wanted it for a car or two, I'd support it. So I'd need to see a lot of input in favor.

Two: The real problem I think is a practical one and that is it could open the flood gates to a whole host of people wanting their car dual classed, which would just create a classification mess in my view.

We do try -- I know it doesn't look that way sometimes -- to keep things simple in IT, and single classifications seem to me to make the most sense.

But I would defer to membership on this if a strong preference was articulated.


Plus a big one. I've been a fan of dual-classification even before we did it with the E36, and I really haven't seen cats and dogs living together since we did. Actually, I think it has created nice competition in both classes and, ultimately, answered its own question.

What's it gonna take for the ITAC and CRB to consider dual classification more widely? Really, where's the harm in it? Let the participants make that decision.

GA

[mossaidis]

I think there's two issues here, unless i missed something earlier in the thread.

Someone needs to show that IT adder does/doesn't holds true for 10/10ths Corolla GTS motor... 25% in ITA, albeit 30% in ITB.

I say classify cars in dual class at a case-by-case basis, that is, is the work warranted because there are enough cars of that model in IT AND it be classed at two different weights w/o excessive lead?

[JeffYoung]

That's a good point on the 16 valve gain percentage, although it's been effectively "solved" for all 4AGE cars since we decided to peg the MR2 at 25% (and I personally believe it should be lower).

[Spinnetti]

With all due respect I think that statement speaks volumes for the competiveness of the car.

You've clearly got it well developed and I'm sure it is well driven. But when you ran against the very best ITA cars in the country (or some of them) it was a tough row to hoe.

I'm on the ITAC and with the data I saw, did not think the car could run competitvely in ITA at any realistically achievable spec weight (I'm talking about the MR2 -- are you saying you could make the Process weight in the Corolla in ITA? If so that is somethign for us to consider).

A lot of cars run a couple hundred pounds ballast. It can be an advantage since you are able to put the weight where you want it using cage, cool suit, lead in the passenger floor, etc.

I hate that you are giving up on IT. We made the move to ITB because we thought it would enhance the competitiveness of the car. And, honestly, you say you think the car would be faster than other ITB cars -- in your region. I'd invite you to come to the ARRC and run against the Keanes, Underwood, Ruck, Knestis, Vaughan Scott, etc.

Jeff L -- sorry dude, I forgot you had that thing winning championships in probably the most competitive ITA region in the country. DEFINITELY add the Saturn to that list.

Sorry for any confusion:
1. I could NOT get down to process weight if it stayed in ITA - Its already as light as it can realistically get short of me cutting my weight in half (at my age, not likely!)

2. I WAS well faster than many of the ITB cars (though the volvos were dang fast then)at my current weight and 7" wheels. Tack on 220lb and narrower wheels, and I imagine I'll struggle a fair bit in ITB as expected, but adding all that weight takes away all the work I've done over the years. Heck, I pull stuff out of my street car to get it as light as possible!

3. In summary, I spent 19 years trying to go faster. Not just to win races, but to constantly improve me and the car. To go slower, is to go backwards. ITB is a good class but if anything, I want to go faster not slower, and to do that I guess I have to bail on IT as I don't plan to lose the investment in this car. Winning is nice, but my ego is over that I think. That's just a nice to have (though there no way I'd run as a back marker)... I was no longer really competitive in ITA, but I still ran top 5, and got wins when the top guys weren't there. That was good enough. I like the dual class idea.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I would rather go a bit slower and finish higher up the final order - but that is me.

[jjjanos]

2. I WAS well faster than many of the ITB cars (though the volvos were dang fast then)at my current weight and 7" wheels. Tack on 220lb and narrower wheels, and I imagine I'll struggle a fair bit in ITB as expected, but adding all that weight takes away all the work I've done over the years. Heck, I pull stuff out of my street car to get it as light as possible!

3. In summary, I spent 19 years trying to go faster. Not just to win races, but to constantly improve me and the car.

re: The weight... excellent. You've removed all the weight that you can from bad places and now you can put some if back in a better location.

re: The challenge ... the same challenge is there. Consider it a clean slate instead of comparisons to your ITB times. Seek to go faster in an ITB car rather than faster in a car that use to be ITA. The extra weight in the car is going to put more emphasis on driving skill. It's a much harder to gain a tenth of a second in an ITC car than it is in an ITB. Same goes for an ITB car versus ITA.

[Spinnetti]

re: The weight... excellent. You've removed all the weight that you can from bad places and now you can put some if back in a better location.

re: The challenge ... the same challenge is there. Consider it a clean slate instead of comparisons to your ITB times. Seek to go faster in an ITB car rather than faster in a car that use to be ITA. The extra weight in the car is going to put more emphasis on driving skill. It's a much harder to gain a tenth of a second in an ITC car than it is in an ITB. Same goes for an ITB car versus ITA.

Ok, fair enough. I give... but 220lbs!! and an expensive wheel swap. Thanks for all the feedback - didn't mean to irritate... STL is out because have to have 90 or newer, and mines and 85. Maybe prep2 Prod. Until I figure it out, I've got my Lexus LS400 Lemons car that is surprising fun to drive an seriously fast comparatively!

[RacerBill]

I don't remember if it was mentioned here or not, but moving from ITA to ITB also reduces the wheel width from 7" to 6" :-(

[StephenB]

More important to me than the cost of wheels or the fact that the car may be slower would be the fact that most of us at this level are doing this because we dream to be pros and/or for the social aspect. Some of us have run with the same group of guys/gals for 10+ years and we have built trust and relationships on and off the track. Forcing someone to take that all away from a third party would push me away and piss me off as well. If someone doesn't care about winning but wants to keep racing with his or her buddies I see no harm in allowing it. All these cars should be dual classed, period. Leave them as they are in the class it was in (or even post the un-achievable weight) and post what class the car would fit better in based on the new classification process. Let the drivers decide... this is as someone else said "gentlemen racing" aka amatuer... we do this just as much for the social aspect as the racing aspect.

The #1 reason I didn't want to leave ITB was because of the people I race with and trust on and off the track. I will miss going side by side with several of the people that I have really enjoyed racing with over the years.

Stephen

[lateapex911]

I see both sides of the dual classing debate.
But, in cases where cars are moved up or down across a 'tier classing" line, such as from A to B or S to R (or vice versas), and significant changes are demanded upon the mebership, such as the disposal of a quiver of wheels and tires and the aquisition of same, i feel dual classing is an absolute MUST.

The goal of moving the car is to enhance the competitors racing experience by placing the car in a class where it has (according to the process) a better chance of being competitive. And thats great, but, for many budget limited competitors, the move makes them LESS competitive, because they need to purchase a whole set of running stock.

If i were moved from A to B, I'd have to: Sell a bunch of wheels that fit basically only my car (which just got moved and now nobody needs them! which = worthless) And buy: 4 sets of wheels, with two sets of race tires, 1 set of A compound qualifier and cold temp tires and 1 set of rain tires. Thats probably about 5 grand worth of stuff, just to get back what I already had.

That expenditure...or the inability to do that, destroys the very competitiveness the move is supposed to foster.

Dual classing is a must do to avoid situations like that.

Also, there's the local and social aspects as mentioned above.

[lateapex911]

This statement is untrue. The IT system changed dramatically with the introduction of "The Process". Better or worse depends on your perspective. The current classification process was only established a few years ago and is just now being implemented. The number of club members who are dissatisfied with or adversely effected by the changes is far greater then the ITAC cares to acknowledge.

You're right. The process removed idiotic car classing like the 1st gen RX-7 being placed in ITS. And things like having to remain the same weight if a car gets moved down a class.

But, you're really pretty dead wrong on your "A few years ago...and just now being implemented" statement, and that's embarrassing for a guy who's ON the ITAC (or was). You SHOULD know and understand IT history, and the big view better if you are to serve as an effective member.

Since you were on the ITAC, and clearly have inside information about the number of dissatisfied people, why not actually back that statement up with, you know, facts? Or even examples?

In my tenure on the ITAC, I traveled to, and talked to IT racers from Atlanta to Ohio to NY state to Pennsylvania, to New Hampshire to West Virginia, to Virginia, to the Carolinas, to New Jersey and California. Oh and to Connecticut.

I talked to people confused (A fair number), disgruntled (Tom Lamb, for example), hopeful and satisfied, (Kip VanSteenberg) and the number of people who were positive in general far outweighed those who were dissatisfied. Were there people who were satisfied but with specific issues? Absolutely, but, in nearly every case, the issue had little to do with the larger "Process", and more to do with specific calibrations of a certain car or cars.

I'd love you to fill us in on the breadth, scope and results of your similar research.

[dickita15]

I have never really understood the fear of dual classification in IT. It happens in Prod and GT where cars can run with different displacement motors. Personally I would like people given a choice but of course talking about it here does not really do much. Submitting letters and forcing the ITAC to talk about it and make a recommendation to the CRB is the right way to make change happen. Spinnetti is a proper poster child for why this is a good idea.

[gran racing]

Well said Stephen.

The wheel change was the biggest I saw before but do also understand the social aspect too. Yes, I AM mad at you for going to ITR (I totally get that too though). Do you know how hard it's going to be for me to block you at the Glen in a few weeks? I'm working on extending my bumper out much further by stealing one of those contraptions from a school bus.

Maybe just dual class for those cars being moved to another class makes sense.

[erlrich]

Well said Stephen.

The wheel change was the biggest I saw before but do also understand the social aspect too. Yes, I AM mad at you for going to ITR (I totally get that too though). Do you know how hard it's going to be for me to block you at the Glen in a few weeks? I'm working on extending my bumper out much further by stealing one of those contraptions from a school bus.

Maybe just dual class for those cars being moved to another class makes sense.

This. When you move an established car from one class to another they should be given the option to stay in their current class, especially when that move involves changes in weight, wheel size, etc.

The ITAC, CRB, and BoD just don't seem to get that there are still quite a few guys out there (although obviously in the minority) who are racing with very limited budgets and/or time to make changes to move from one class to another. I know many of them just don't care, but I also know there are some who do - maybe they just don't get it?

[tnord]

since you seem to know.....who is it that doesn't care earl?

[StephenB]

Makes total sense Mr. P.! Even though it doesn't affect me personally I am going to send in a letter later tonight when I get home (Can't do it from a phone on the SCCA site) I am doing it because of my moral beliefs and encourage others to do so as well even if it doesn't affect you it probably affects someone you probably race with.

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

We certainly do care, and we certainly understand most ITers run on a budget. I'd say a significant portion of the ITAC membership does.

Most of the classification changes we make are based on requests from membership. Very rarely is anything done sua sponte, although on occasion we do individually determine a car can't make spec weight in its class and move it down.


This. When you move an established car from one class to another they should be given the option to stay in their current class, especially when that move involves changes in weight, wheel size, etc.

The ITAC, CRB, and BoD just don't seem to get that there are still quite a few guys out there (although obviously in the minority) who are racing with very limited budgets and/or time to make changes to move from one class to another. I know many of them just don't care, but I also know there are some who do - maybe they just don't get it?

[lateapex911]

In my time on the ITAC, the subject came up numerous times. In general, the idea was frowned upon. I can see both sides and I only fought hard for it in cases like the E36 and other ITS cars being moved to ITR.

But, the make up of the ITAC at the time was not in favor. I wouldn't say that they "didn't care about the budget racer", though. One guy is VERY budget oriented, (the guy who says use a chain as an engine mount substitute) and IIRC he was no fan of dual classing.
I can't comment on the CRB as a whole, as they all aren't on the concalls.

I CAN see how appreciating the low budget guy can be hard for anybody though, when you look around the padddock at races, especially big National races. I'm always impressed by the what i call "relax/race dollar ratio" has changed over the years. It used to be guys would put the majority of their racing budget into the car, and sleep in a tent or the back of a truck. MAYbe an enclosed trailer...but that was living large, LOL. Now, I see diesel pushers and toter homes pulling $10K racecars.

[gran racing]

Most of the classification changes we make are based on requests from membership.

Agreed, however it doesn't take a unanimous vote of acceptance from all drivers who are either racing them currently or potentially in the build process. The MR2 is one of the sereral examples. There most definately were people who wanted the car to stay in ITA. While I agree putting it in ITB was the right move in terms of where it fits, having a choice and offering flexibility does not hurt.


I also believe it might cause some confusion, but would take that and work on the many other more confusing aspects of this game.



I CAN see how appreciating the low budget guy can be hard for anybody though

So continue to make it harder? I know that's not what you meant but it is what this (again, really just because of the wheel change) does. And before anyone says it, no, changing the wheel rule in B & C does not help this.

[Spinnetti]

We certainly do care, and we certainly understand most ITers run on a budget. I'd say a significant portion of the ITAC membership does.

Most of the classification changes we make are based on requests from membership. Very rarely is anything done sua sponte, although on occasion we do individually determine a car can't make spec weight in its class and move it down.

Jeff, Who Voted the Corolla down to B? I understand, and honestly it probably makes sense, but when it was talked about some years ago, I was pretty clear here I sure didn't want to go down to B. Look at it this way. I can spend thousands and enjoy my car less to finish higher, or I can stay where I am and still end up racing with the pointy end of the B field... Hmm. Seems pretty easy to me. I'll still beat half of the A field anyway. I know you guys are trying to do the right thing, and this is a VERY difficult customer base, but what members specifically wanted to move it? For 19 years there were never more than a handful of Corollas (never were that competitive - that was the challenge for me to go for 10/10ths), and at least 2 of them were destroyed along the way. Is there anybody but me left? If not, it sure wasn't based on Corolla owner input!

[quadzjr]

Spinnetti..

I feel your pain (races ITB MR2). I had to melt down 4.5 gallon buckets of wheel waits to get the my car to minimum weight. Mostly becuase the use of alot of steel weights instead of lead.. but in either cae I had a total of 5 bricks of lead in my passenger side compartment totalling ~190lbs.

I just pulled 96.3lbs out of the car for the new classification. I still have Two large bricks, spare tire, etc..

About the 220lbs.. though currently that is true, I see no reason why the ITAC would not class the car similiarly to how they just re-classed the MR2 @25% based on Chip's letter submitted. So in all probablity expect to reduce 95lbs from that number.

If you are in the market to sell, by brother is looking for an ITB car, if the right one came along. We have tons of toyota and honda spares, but he likes "right" wheel drive.

[Ron Earp]

How many cars are we talking about here that should/could/can be dual classed? 3? 19? 41? What is the criteria, not making weight in the assigned class?

Off the cuff:



ITR BMW 325 - already is DC
ITR V6 Camaro ITS/ITR as some claim it can't make weight in R although 200hp stock seems like a lot in S
ITR Celcia GTS into ITS
ITS Mustang - the car I'm fixing to build, no way it'll ever hit 2480 lbs in ITS. A at a higher weight?
New Miata - ITS or ITR? I suppose it is ITS only based on power
RX8? ITS at a higher weight?
IT7 cars - B material also?

[erlrich]

We certainly do care, and we certainly understand most ITers run on a budget. I'd say a significant portion of the ITAC membership does.

Most of the classification changes we make are based on requests from membership. Very rarely is anything done sua sponte, although on occasion we do individually determine a car can't make spec weight in its class and move it down.

Jeff, I include you in the "does give a shit" category, and I know there are others as well. I just have to think you're in the minority.

JHMO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The ITAC, CRB, and BoD just don't seem to get that there are still quite a few guys out there (although obviously in the minority) who are racing with very limited budgets and/or time to make changes to move from one class to another. I know many of them just don't care, but I also know there are some who do - maybe they just don't get it?


Or maybe, just maybe, people in decision-making positions need to make their decisions with the greater good in mind all while looking at the past, present and future ramifications of every decision.

The problem with many squeeky wheels is that many of them only look at their house and not the whole neigborhood, or the town or state, etc.

If I had a dollar for every time I explained a decision to someone who initially thought it was the worst one on the whole world becuase of how it effected HIM, then changed their tune when you lay out the whys and hows and what may be good for the category as a whole - I'd be rich.

(On edit - dual classing is a no-brainer. You could easily define what could be considered a tweener and also give cars moving from A to B or R to S a 5 year window.)

[Spinnetti]

Just keep in mind that Super Touring is a whole 'nother step on the modifications/development/tuning ladder. If you're averse to changes to re-do/re-learn in ITB, you may be a bit put-off by having to compete against approaching-200whp 2340# Acura Integras and Mazda Miatas...we'd welcome you over, but be sure you understand what you're getting into first... - GA

Oh, I know I have no chance, I just need something to put on the entry form. By having a "legal" class to run in, I can get on track and will still run with the ITB/ITA crowd...

[Spinnetti]

Or maybe, just maybe, people in decision-making positions need to make their decisions with the greater good in mind all while looking at the past, present and future ramifications of every decision.

The problem with many squeeky wheels is that many of them only look at their house and not the whole neigborhood, or the town or state, etc.

If I had a dollar for every time I explained a decision to someone who initially thought it was the worst one on the whole world becuase of how it effected HIM, then changed their tune when you lay out the whys and hows and what may be good for the category as a whole - I'd be rich.

(On edit - dual classing is a no-brainer. You could easily define what could be considered a tweener and also give cars moving from A to B or R to S a 5 year window.)

Andy, I never indicated it was a bad decision for competitiveness, its just a big cost up, and car slow down for me, and as a customer, you guys are sending me shopping. I like your transition window idea. By that time I can build a decent ITR car and retire the Corolla to car shows and track days.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I never indicated it was a bad decision for competitiveness, its just a big cost up, and car slow down for me, and as a customer, you guys are sending me shopping. I like your transition window idea. By that time I can build a decent ITR car and retire the Corolla to car shows and track days.

This wasn't aimed at you specifically. Each of us make our own decisions on a very personal level. Like I said, I would rather go slightly slower and run at the front of B than be slightly faster and not have a shot in A. But that is a position that is personal to me.

The ITAC needs to decide which position best represents the drivers as a whole, and drivers who may want to enter IT racing in a car like this.

PS: Notchback or fastback?

[dickita15]

Here again I am not sure why this has to be complicated. If dual classification is not a threat to the natural order of life why put artificial limits like only cars that have been moved or only for so many years. I just do not understand the threat.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here again I am not sure why this has to be complicated. If dual classification is not a threat to the natural order of life why put artificial limits like only cars that have been moved or only for so many years. I just do not understand the threat.

Because we WILL get people who want to run in a different class or stay in a class when there is no issues with new wheels etc.

You can't allow every car to be DC'd. Just cars that NEED it.

When I was on teh Stock CLass Advisory Committee for Solo, we had a guy who was pissed his car got moved DOWN (slower) a class because he was winning B-Stock but would get crushed by the local F-Stock competition. He didn't know FS was supposed to be slower than BS.

[Ron Earp]

You can't allow every car to be DC'd. Just cars that NEED it.
.

Back to my post that got lost back there in the name calling - how many need it? A few? A lot? How do we know what cars need DC?

[JeffYoung]

Fair question.

It was moved along with the MR2 (we had many requests to move it to b) because it was the same engine. The thinking was the Corolla would never make weight in ITA given the limited ability of the 4AGE to make power, and so it was really a B car like the MR2.

However, if you are the only guy racing the car and want a dual classification in A/B, I do not have any problem with that. I don't understand it...lol...but I agree on issues like this we should be responsive to what membership wants.


Jeff, Who Voted the Corolla down to B? I understand, and honestly it probably makes sense, but when it was talked about some years ago, I was pretty clear here I sure didn't want to go down to B. Look at it this way. I can spend thousands and enjoy my car less to finish higher, or I can stay where I am and still end up racing with the pointy end of the B field... Hmm. Seems pretty easy to me. I'll still beat half of the A field anyway. I know you guys are trying to do the right thing, and this is a VERY difficult customer base, but what members specifically wanted to move it? For 19 years there were never more than a handful of Corollas (never were that competitive - that was the challenge for me to go for 10/10ths), and at least 2 of them were destroyed along the way. Is there anybody but me left? If not, it sure wasn't based on Corolla owner input!

[tnord]

I don't do this often...but you've earned it:

Fuck off Travis - go be a troll somewhere else.

thanks buddy!

happy to serve you and the rest of the membership.

[JoshS]

FWIW, I hate dual classing and during my time on the ITAC I was dead-set against it ... EXCEPT in the case of the creation of a whole new class, where the class needs some time to seed.

What I think should have happened when ITR was created is that the existing ITS cars that were better fits in ITR should have been allowed dual-classing, but their ITS classing should have had an expiration date on it, so that after a little while it was ITR or nothing.

Whether or not to allow dual classing to me is about determining whether or not we exist to serve the current members, or be attractive to future ones. The answer of course is "both" but that means that decisions are difficult. Existing members, sure, it's a club, let people run in any class, do the DC, sure, why not? But to have the classing be attractive to people who are on the outside looking in, it makes it very hard to determine what you're going to be up against when you decide to build a car for IT. Plus, it makes it hard to get a picture of what (say) ITB is going to look like if you're looking to build a car for it. You go to the track and you see the same car in multiple classes, people always wonder what that's all about. I've seen the confusion over and over.

I think there are five approaches to dual classing:

1) No DC at all.
2) DC only in the case of an all-new class, as mentioned above. I'd want to expire the original listing if the class "works out."
3) Allow DC as #1 except for any car being reclassed. Again, expire the old listing after a couple of years.
4) There could be DC for a limited set of cars who "need it" as proposed by Andy. To me, that's big-time problematic in terms of managing expectations with the members.
5) There could be a blanket DC rule: class the car in the "slowest" appropriate class, then allow *any* car to run in the next faster class with a 100lb or so weight break.

We're somewhere between #2 and #3 right now. I'd rather be at #2 but we don't have any expiration for the older listings.

The last approach #5 is good for the current members and the regions, as in some regions members would have opportunities to double-dip. But in my mind there are other ways to double-dip already (STU, STL, ITE, etc) and regions are free to make up their own classes to encourage double-dipping -- here in SFR we have been doing this for years. I don't think that classing decisions should ever be made with the idea of allowing double-dipping, that's a race operations thing to me.

So, yeah, I just can't say that I'm a fan. But I no longer have a voice on the ITAC.

[jjjanos]

You can't allow every car to be DC'd. Just cars that NEED it.

I'm sorry.... why?

If the car ain't a tweener, then just classify it at its current weight in the "faster" class.

If the "Process" is correct, then it isn't going to be competitive in the faster class.

For me, the biggest cost expense in doing an 'away' race is the fact that it is away -- towing, food, lodging, the flowers because I'm not home helping with the kid. Kee-rist, I'd love to be able to triple dip. You can't tell me that the speed differential between an ITB car running as STU and an EP is going to be smaller than an ITB car running as an ITA with ITA cars. If I'm at VIR, I don't care if I'm competitive... I just want to drive the damn thing.

Hell, with a small child, getting an entire weekend free of birthday parties, swim lessons, soccer practice, ad nauseum is damn near impossible. Let people run as many race groups as can be done safely.

More track time for the driver. More entrie$ for the regions.

So... exactly where is the harm?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm sorry.... why?

If the car ain't a tweener, then just classify it at its current weight in the "faster" class.

If the "Process" is correct, then it isn't going to be competitive in the faster class.



This is totally different that what I am thinking for 'dual classing'. To me it's listing the same car, at its appropriate process weight in each of those classes...not the SAME weight.

Take my car (using 25% in all classes , not ever subscribing to the 30% multi-valve BS)

ITS: 2065
ITA: 2370
ITB: 2770 (wondering what kind of times my car would run with 425lbs of ballast)

But I say for tweeners and R to S and A to B because you would triple, or 4x or 5x the amount of weights in the GCR - AS WELL AS, force the CRB to allow a full calculation of every car. Besides the political BS, it's just not needed.

You don't need people cherry picking classes. In the case of the 2nd gen RX-7, the MR2, etc - go for it.

[JoshS]

For me, the biggest cost expense in doing an 'away' race is the fact that it is away -- towing, food, lodging, the flowers because I'm not home helping with the kid. Kee-rist, I'd love to be able to triple dip.

I totally agree with the cost equation (especially the flowers!) and how it works out best if you can enter multiple times.

But being listed in multiple IT classes is no guarantee that you'll be able to double or triple dip ... after all, here in SFR, we run all of the IT classes together in a single race group. It wouldn't help at all.

I'll say again that since race groupings are done by the regions, there's no reason that nationally-based classing should be considering "the ability to double-dip" when figuring out how a car should be classed. That's a problem for the regions to solve, and they are each going to do it their own way.

[Spinnetti]

PS: Notchback or fastback?

Hatchback (is that Fastback?)....

You could allow it in A at process weight knowing there's no way in He** anybody can hit it. I understand you guys, I just want options. For instance why wouldn't your let ANY car run one class up in the same spec? (i.e. any IT car go up 1 IT class)... gives more options, maybe more money for the clubs if guys want to double dip etc... I'll move on, but I'm not buying 8-12 new Panasports so I can go slower - I know you don't think that way, but the machine is as important as the racing.

Here's the impact - a lack of options in this case means my buddy who was on the cusp today of looking at buying an ITA neon isn't going to do it because we can't run in the same class. I think all of your technical reasoning is quite sound - I have no issue with it per se, but from a value proposition to the members, more options = more competitors.....

[JeffYoung]

You mean the 1st gen RX7 right?


This is totally different that what I am thinking for 'dual classing'. To me it's listing the same car, at its appropriate process weight in each of those classes...not the SAME weight.

Take my car (using 25% in all classes , not ever subscribing to the 30% multi-valve BS)

ITS: 2065
ITA: 2370
ITB: 2770 (wondering what kind of times my car would run with 425lbs of ballast)

But I say for tweeners and R to S and A to B because you would triple, or 4x or 5x the amount of weights in the GCR - AS WELL AS, force the CRB to allow a full calculation of every car. Besides the political BS, it's just not needed.

You don't need people cherry picking classes. In the case of the 2nd gen RX-7, the MR2, etc - go for it.

[Chip42]

spinnetti - what does your car weigh? I'm betting from your comments that it's about 2210, the old ITA weight - based on no known calculations. right now, if the car were to be processed in ITA using the standard multiplier, it would be 2030, unrealisticly low. All cars processed are assumed to be reasonably competitive based on power to weight in any class, but they pick the class that has the lowest realistic weight.
The pending ITB weight will be 2380 whenever that gets done (based on 125% of factory crank HP). If and when we (I sincerely hope that includes you) convince those still in need of convincing (certain CRB/ITAC members) to lower the power multiplier, you get more weight off, approaching or all the way to what was shown in andy's post earlier (2190). in short, you stand to LOOSE 20# total. and you'd still run with the ITA guys if your region groups ITB/A.

If you join the other 4AGE racers who care to see the process fully utilized, and argue for use of the known horsepower clause in the ITAC operations manual, you could wind up in a better position than you are in now, keeping all of your years of developement, and help others with simillar powerplants.

If ITB is a good place for these cars, and I bvelieve that it is, then getting them correctly classed in ITB will help keep the cars active, which will keep knowledgebases and parts sources going as well. we might even attract new 4AGE racers!

I know wheels are pricey, but you can get 4, 14x6, 4 on 100 K1TS koseis for ~$500, so it's not the end of the world, but the loss of a weekend. in the mean time, go ahead and use up the tires you have in ITB - trust me, in a good field the car wont podium anyway at its current weight. If anyone is running for points, offer to waive your points as you're just there for fun anyhow. sell your 14 or 15x7 panasports (they will sell, and for good money) and you'll come out even, if not ahead.

regarding other active IT Corolla GTS cars: I know for a fact that there are 2 in the SEDIV/CFR running around, a red one and a white one. both were A cars, I haven't seen the white one since the move down to B, but I became a dad just over a year ago and haven't been around as much as I would like. the white one was a pretty well developed car, running mid-pack in ITA.

[Chip42]

with regard to dual classing:

cars like the civic/CRX/del sol exist in multiple classes all over IT for any given body style due to the range of engines. simillar truth for BMW 3 series and celica/corolla.

thus "visual understanding" is a void argument.

I think dual classing should not be done except in VERY specific and special cases, like the creation of ITR. if a car cannot make weight/hp in it's class, and that is proven to the satisfaction of the ITAC/CRB, then reprocess it as appropriate. it's hard enough to keep up with errors and omissions as it is, why double the number of spec lines?

the wheel change arguemnt has merit, but no one has proposed a universally accepted solution to it, so certain entrants bite the bullet when their cars move accross lines. in cases where the car has a common bolt circle and wheel size, the sell off / buy new equation should work out so that it is less painful.

however - I think racing upclass should be allowed so long as the car conforms to the published ITCS spec line (i.e. an ITB car runs in ITA but keeps its 6" wheels and runs it's ITB weight). This poses no threat to strong competitors, and allows cars in spinnettis situation to run in a group he is comfortable with, or where there might be some competition. Class labeling will be tricky though. this decision shouldn't even affect the ITAC, it should be a decision for any region that wishes to allow it. if a driver in a car places well in the seasonal points, upclass, well then good for him - probobly not a very strong class in general.

[dickita15]

I just do not get the whole fear if confusion thing. Most all our races are alphabet soup now. If the goal was to not confuse the casual observer I think that ship has sailed. We are a participant driven sport. We need to let people race what they want as long as it is not unfair or unsafe. Now that we have a process that fairly classes cars what is the problem if a member asks for his car to be classed in a different class.

[Spinnetti]

spinnetti - what does your car weigh? I'm betting from your comments that it's about 2210, the old ITA weight - based on no known calculations. right now, if the car were to be processed in ITA using the standard multiplier, it would be 2030, unrealisticly low. All cars processed are assumed to be reasonably competitive based on power to weight in any class, but they pick the class that has the lowest realistic weight.
The pending ITB weight will be 2380 whenever that gets done (based on 125% of factory crank HP). If and when we (I sincerely hope that includes you) convince those still in need of convincing (certain CRB/ITAC members) to lower the power multiplier, you get more weight off, approaching or all the way to what was shown in andy's post earlier (2190). in short, you stand to LOOSE 20# total. and you'd still run with the ITA guys if your region groups ITB/A.

If you join the other 4AGE racers who care to see the process fully utilized, and argue for use of the known horsepower clause in the ITAC operations manual, you could wind up in a better position than you are in now, keeping all of your years of developement, and help others with simillar powerplants.

If ITB is a good place for these cars, and I bvelieve that it is, then getting them correctly classed in ITB will help keep the cars active, which will keep knowledgebases and parts sources going as well. we might even attract new 4AGE racers!

I know wheels are pricey, but you can get 4, 14x6, 4 on 100 K1TS koseis for ~$500, so it's not the end of the world, but the loss of a weekend. in the mean time, go ahead and use up the tires you have in ITB - trust me, in a good field the car wont podium anyway at its current weight. If anyone is running for points, offer to waive your points as you're just there for fun anyhow. sell your 14 or 15x7 panasports (they will sell, and for good money) and you'll come out even, if not ahead.

regarding other active IT Corolla GTS cars: I know for a fact that there are 2 in the SEDIV/CFR running around, a red one and a white one. both were A cars, I haven't seen the white one since the move down to B, but I became a dad just over a year ago and haven't been around as much as I would like. the white one was a pretty well developed car, running mid-pack in ITA.

Thanks for all the info. I don't know all about the % thing or the process to determine weight, so I'm not sure what to write the CRB with or how to support you in that.

Interesting how the math turned out. I'm pretty sure I know exactly how the weight was originally set, but I'll save that for another day. My car was exactly 2030 without driver prior to my last updates (more cage tubes) and right on 2210 with me in it as it sits (though I've gained weight since). So ITA process weight would be 2030 WITH driver? - yeah, no chance of hitting that. Its such a huge swing to go from 2030 to 2380 (I'm assuming with driver in both cases). It would be like dancing with ankle weights. No thanks.

After some reflection, I finally understand why I'm all fussy. Its not about the process, it being a good idea or not, or if I have a chance to win or not. Its about not having a choice and being impacted both from my long history with the car and financially. Imagine the city suddenly put in new streetlights, sidewalks etc. for the good of your neighbors then slaps you with a $3,000 bill you never knew was coming and had no say in. I think everybody is acting in good faith, I just don't like it.

PS
My Panasports are the ultralights, and unique to RWD Toyota's and 240Z's, not not like lots of people are looking for them. If I downgrade, I still want the best/lightest wheels I can find, so it will be 'spensive and I don't want to. The 6"- 7" thing is dumb anyway - its an arbitrary limit to try to differentiate the class. The "fit within the fenders" should be enough, but one whine at a time ;)

[gran racing]

Dick, I know I've said it before but I'm really glad you are on the BOD of this club. And in addition to that, still express your views on places like this forum.


If the goal was to not confuse the casual observer

Agreed, we're participant based but also understand the dual, but not really all dual classification, will make people wonder why. SM, SSM, SM2 (I have yet to figure that one out lol). SCCA is a confusing place. Not saying other clubs aren't, but I'm an SCCA guy so that where my focus is.

[Chip42]

Thanks for all the info. I don't know all about the % thing or the process to determine weight, so I'm not sure what to write the CRB with or how to support you in that.

www.crbscca.com
I request or suggest you write in regarding these things (in separate letters):
1- you car, its weight, prep level, horsepower, etc... details on the build, particularly with regard to the motor are desired. this is less for you, now, then it is for the rest of the 4AGE set. one thing we're "missing" is a fully developed IT 4AGE. And don't be offended if you are told that yours is only 80-90%. that last 10% is serious territory. Whatever we can add to the body of knowledge will help all of us with this engine. I thank you for your help.

2- write in stating your desire to have the Corolla GTS moved back to ITA. I expect that if they do they will recalculate the weight as I stated, but it would be back where you want it. this wouldn't be the first time different cars with the same motor straddled classes. see 1ZZ-FE celica GT (ITA) / MR2 Spyder (ITS) or the 2ZZ-GE Corolla XRS (ITS) / Celica GTS (ITR). it's all about power/weight for the package.

PS - if you don't have dyno data for #1, let me know and I'll try to help out with the costs. I'm dead serious about that.

[StephenB]

Makes total sense Mr. P.! Even though it doesn't affect me personally I am going to send in a letter later tonight when I get home (Can't do it from a phone on the SCCA site) I am doing it because of my moral beliefs and encourage others to do so as well even if it doesn't affect you it probably affects someone you probably race with.

Stephen

I have not had a single letter I have ever written make it to fast track but maybe this one will make it :)

CRB Letter Tracking Number #5335

Stephen

[Spinnetti]

www.crbscca.com
I request or suggest you write in regarding these things (in separate letters):
1- you car, its weight, prep level, horsepower, etc... details on the build, particularly with regard to the motor are desired. this is less for you, now, then it is for the rest of the 4AGE set. one thing we're "missing" is a fully developed IT 4AGE. And don't be offended if you are told that yours is only 80-90%. that last 10% is serious territory. Whatever we can add to the body of knowledge will help all of us with this engine. I thank you for your help.

2- write in stating your desire to have the Corolla GTS moved back to ITA. I expect that if they do they will recalculate the weight as I stated, but it would be back where you want it. this wouldn't be the first time different cars with the same motor straddled classes. see 1ZZ-FE celica GT (ITA) / MR2 Spyder (ITS) or the 2ZZ-GE Corolla XRS (ITS) / Celica GTS (ITR). it's all about power/weight for the package.

PS - if you don't have dyno data for #1, let me know and I'll try to help out with the costs. I'm dead serious about that.

Well, is process weight in A 2030 with driver? If so, its a moot point. It'll never hit that... that is its empty weight.

I have not dynoed, and its got 20hrs or so on it but I've been meaning to. Somebody recently stole my nice Aluma trailer (uninsured) so I'm not going anywhere for a while. Its pretty straight forward - just .040 over, Compression close to the limit, cam timing corrected, match ported, balanced very well, total seal rings if I remember right, RC blueprinted injectors, TRD header, reasonable sized crank pulley, TRD ignition wires, Jacobs coil, Indexed Iridium plugs, supra fuel pump and 0-40 synthetic. That's about it other than desmog. I thought that was pretty standard stuff? Tuning doesn't seem to do jack on these motors, so its a stock computer, though I'd like to be able to adjust timing. I've considered going with an aftermarket computer, but haven't seen any evidence it helps this engine so far. I also played with fuel pressure a bit, but went back to stock. I had a "pro" build it (Wayne Snyder in Michigan - autocross guy with a automotive machine shop)... I don't know if that makes it a 60% or a 90%, but back in the day the MR2's had a hard time keeping up, though the other Corollas were slower than the MR2's - dunno if that was prep and experience, or the car. I'm curious what legal things you can do beyond that (clearly I'm a noob on that - I didn't sort through 50 heads for the perfect one for instance). If I wanted to be really crazy, I'd omit the 2nd compression ring, or run it real loose, run wider bearing clearances, cheater "stealth" coatings etc. but I didn't do any of that. I'm no engine guy, so not sure how much further people go and still be in the rules. I read them pretty close, and I'm not much for "stretching" them. I think its pretty solid, but these things don't make squat for power. There's just no headroom without serious mods unlike the Honda's for instance.

[jjjanos]

This is totally different that what I am thinking for 'dual classing'. To me it's listing the same car, at its appropriate process weight in each of those classes...not the SAME weight.

Take my car (using 25% in all classes , not ever subscribing to the 30% multi-valve BS)

ITS: 2065
ITA: 2370
ITB: 2770 (wondering what kind of times my car would run with 425lbs of ballast)


Again, I must ask, why not? If you want to slap 425 lbs of ballast onto your car and increase wear on consumables and the equipment, why not? Isn't this somewhat analogous to what NASA does with their PT class, but instead of mods, this would be weight?


But I say for tweeners and R to S and A to B because you would triple, or 4x or 5x the amount of weights in the GCR - AS WELL AS, force the CRB to allow a full calculation of every car. Besides the political BS, it's just not needed.Then limit it to moving "up" in classes to non-tweener cars. I'm interested in learning what ITR car would need to weigh 5 times its ITR weight to have the correct HP ratio for ITB. I would say the move from R to A would be about a 50% weight increase.

Now, if someone wants to throw 1000lbs of ballast in their car and can do that safely, why not?


But being listed in multiple IT classes is no guarantee that you'll be able to double or triple dip ... after all, here in SFR, we run all of the IT classes together in a single race group. It wouldn't help at all.

Some places it would help without adjusting run groups. Some places might need to split IT into 2 run groups to do it.


I'll say again that since race groupings are done by the regions, there's no reason that nationally-based classing should be considering "the ability to double-dip" when figuring out how a car should be classed.EVERY car should be allowed to move up the ranking system as it sits. If someone wants to enter their HP-legal HP car as an EP car, let them. If the ACs have done their job, the car won't be competitive.

[lateapex911]

Josh is right about the whole double dipping aspect and that being a regional problem. But, Spin is right that maybe in his area the class he's moving into has 2 cars, and they are both ugly cars driven by idiots, LOL. And the class he's leaving is typically in another run group, has 20 cars average, and he has great races with a bunch of guys for 8th. In THAT case, DC has a huge benefit on him, and he can choose to douple dip as well, should he want to.

I'm with Dick. The whole "confusion" thing is a red herrring. We have Miatas in EVERY non formula car class in SCCA, and we somehow figure out how to explain it to the ONE spectator that actually shows up. We can handle some DC.

I THOUGHT the E36 had a sunset clause for ITS/ITR inclusion, like 5 years. I guess we discussed it but that never got implemented?

[StephenB]

I am confused on why anyone would actually think that confusion is a legitimate argument. I do agree with what Andy said about the workload of doing each car.

Stephen

[Spinnetti]

with regard to dual classing:
however - I think racing upclass should be allowed so long as the car conforms to the published ITCS spec line (i.e. an ITB car runs in ITA but keeps its 6" wheels and runs it's ITB weight). This poses no threat to strong competitors, and allows cars in spinnettis situation to run in a group he is comfortable with, or where there might be some competition.

Well, this would be no good for me, I'd still have to run a B car in A. That would suck even worse. More like this: If you run in the "default" class B, you run 6" wheels at B process weight. If you run at A, you run 7" wheels at A process weight. Can't hit A process weight? too bad! You want to Run in C? you run at C process weight...Basically what Andy was saying I think.

[JeffYoung]

I'm 100% sure you would see some gains from a tuneable ECU. It may not be top end but you can spend a lot of time and money expanding area under the curve which is just as important.

How about exhaust? Have you had Burns or some one do computer modeling on your exhaust/header/merge collector design? Decent gains there for most who have tried it.

Every time I think I'm at 90% or whatever development I've found 5 other things to do/try.



Well, is process weight in A 2030 with driver? If so, its a moot point. It'll never hit that... that is its empty weight.

I have not dynoed, and its got 20hrs or so on it but I've been meaning to. Somebody recently stole my nice Aluma trailer (uninsured) so I'm not going anywhere for a while. Its pretty straight forward - just .040 over, Compression close to the limit, cam timing corrected, match ported, balanced very well, total seal rings if I remember right, RC blueprinted injectors, TRD header, reasonable sized crank pulley, TRD ignition wires, Jacobs coil, Indexed Iridium plugs, supra fuel pump and 0-40 synthetic. That's about it other than desmog. I thought that was pretty standard stuff? Tuning doesn't seem to do jack on these motors, so its a stock computer, though I'd like to be able to adjust timing. I've considered going with an aftermarket computer, but haven't seen any evidence it helps this engine so far. I also played with fuel pressure a bit, but went back to stock. I had a "pro" build it (Wayne Snyder in Michigan - autocross guy with a automotive machine shop)... I don't know if that makes it a 60% or a 90%, but back in the day the MR2's had a hard time keeping up, though the other Corollas were slower than the MR2's - dunno if that was prep and experience, or the car. I'm curious what legal things you can do beyond that (clearly I'm a noob on that - I didn't sort through 50 heads for the perfect one for instance). If I wanted to be really crazy, I'd omit the 2nd compression ring, or run it real loose, run wider bearing clearances, cheater "stealth" coatings etc. but I didn't do any of that. I'm no engine guy, so not sure how much further people go and still be in the rules. I read them pretty close, and I'm not much for "stretching" them. I think its pretty solid, but these things don't make squat for power. There's just no headroom without serious mods unlike the Honda's for instance.

[Chip42]

Well, this would be no good for me, I'd still have to run a B car in A. That would suck even worse. More like this: If you run in the "default" class B, you run 6" wheels at B process weight. If you run at A, you run 7" wheels at A process weight. Can't hit A process weight? too bad! You want to Run in C? you run at C process weight...Basically what Andy was saying I think.
I say, get the listing right in B and it'll be effectively the same car, but with a chance of running up front.

your car's build sounds good, but not super developed. yeah, general knowledge is that the 4AGEs don't see gains. thats why we need those who have tried to let everyone know what was done and what the results were. what we should find at this point is area under the curve which, while nice, has no effect on the process weight, only peak hp. it will help drivability quite a bit though. I'm not going to tell you how far to build your car, that's up to you, but I'd say you're at ~70% with the list you gave.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Again, I must ask, why not? If you want to slap 425 lbs of ballast onto your car and increase wear on consumables and the equipment, why not? Isn't this somewhat analogous to what NASA does with their PT class, but instead of mods, this would be weight?

I am for dual classing and maybe for multi-classing but you seem to underestimate the amount of people who would be pissed that their thropgies whould be taken away by 'lesser' cars. It's not something I subscribe to but trust me, a lot of people only think about their own world.


moving "up" in classes to non-tweener cars. I'm interested in learning what ITR car would need to weigh 5 times its ITR weight to have the correct HP ratio for ITB. I would say the move from R to A would be about a 50% weight increase.
I worded it badly. If you have an ITR car and wanted to move 'down', you would have to publish 5 weights for the car should they want to run all the way through to ITC.


someone wants to throw 1000lbs of ballast in their car and can do that safely, why not?

Can you do that safely?


aces it would help without adjusting run groups. Some places might need to split IT into 2 run groups to do it.

EVERY car should be allowed to move up the ranking system as it sits. If someone wants to enter their HP-legal HP car as an EP car, let them. If the ACs have done their job, the car won't be competitive.

Again, moving up is not a problem and an easly 'do' as long as you stay at your GCR weight. That's not really what I am considering dual classing. DC is a published weight with specs in multiple classes (to me). Do it for the handful of tweeners and for cars that have to change wheels.

[Gary L]

DC is a published weight with specs in multiple classes (to me). Do it for the handful of tweeners and for cars that have to change wheels.

Or a line item note that allows 7" wheels on dual-classed ITA/ITB cars? A small weight adjustment (on the ITB listing) to make up the difference perhaps, and no one has to buy new wheels. I realize the culture is against line item exceptions, but I've never understood why. To me this is the simplest way out.

[jjjanos]

I am for dual classing and maybe for multi-classing but you seem to underestimate the amount of people who would be pissed that their thropgies whould be taken away by 'lesser' cars.

I think anyone who complains about losing a third place in ITB/A/S/R to an ITC car has bigger problems than losing a trophy.


I worded it badly. If you have an ITR car and wanted to move 'down', you would have to publish 5 weights for the car should they want to run all the way through to ITC.

OK, I get it now. How much work does that really entail? If the current process weight is taken as correct, a spreadsheet will back out the IT-trim HP for the car and the weights for the car in the slower classes.


Can you do that safely?

Depends, is the ballast SFI 8765.23 compliant? In theory, yes. Take the Accura Legend (cause it's one of the first listings).
Curb weight: (http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1991-to-1995-acura-legend-8.htm) 3516lbs + driver (175lbs?) = 3691lbs
Say the cage weighs 600 lbs. Since, I do not need to take anything off the car, the implication is that this car is "safe" at 4291lbs. A 50% increase over the ITR weight is only 4700 lbs or about 400lbs over what SCCA implicitly says is a safe weight for that car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Or a line item note that allows 7" wheels on dual-classed ITA/ITB cars? A small weight adjustment (on the ITB listing) to make up the difference perhaps, and no one has to buy new wheels. I realize the culture is against line item exceptions, but I've never understood why. To me this is the simplest way out.

I don't like this one because its just anothe SWAG in the process. I see no need.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think anyone who complains about losing a third place in ITB/A/S/R to an ITC car has bigger problems than losing a trophy.



Agreed, but the letters will come. I have seen them. It's amazing really.

Think of it this way. Guy X works his way to a podium in ITS. I come in to run extra groups. I take his 3rd. Is he pissed? Should I 'be' there? Is it clear to him that I 'should' be slower? The same arguements from people who 'love' their run-group can and don't want to be forced out can be used about people who are allowed in that never have been.

Just sayin'

[lateapex911]

I don't like this one because its just anothe SWAG in the process. I see no need.

I agree. Allowing wider rims down class is a huge can of worms. Yes, it's a swag on the weight. Second, some tracks will be more suited to narrow rims, others to wider rims, and the competitors in the class don't have such options. Not fair to the class.

[dickita15]

Trust the Process Luke.
If a competitor requests a car be classed in a second class just run it thru the process with the new class power to weight and call it a day.
Trust the process.

[lateapex911]

Trust the Process Luke.
If a competitor requests a car be classed in a second class just run it thru the process with the new class power to weight and call it a day.
Trust the process.

When a BoD guy speaks, so clearly, maybe we should pay attention.

[quadzjr]

Spinnetti, in reguards to your build it sounds that your mechanical engine is close to 100%. Mine sounds identical except runngin lowe tension gapless total seal rings, and I did play with the bearing gaps. Coatings are illegal per IT, so no coatings.

what you are missing is the additional stuff. For example I do know that (depending on what TRD header you have) you can gain a few ft/lbs but probably 0 hp going with a different design. I have had burns run a simulation for the the 4AGE with stock cams, cam timing, and port flows. From my understanding they typcially do not do this for free. I calculated using mathmatic calcs using sonic and mass/velocity/acceleration equations (keeping the speed of sound constant with temperature). It parralleled what burns came up with and you might be suprised.

Luckily the stock computer is fairly aggressive.. even with a tuned header the AFR's are really good, which is probably why you saw little gains with changes in FP.

Engine is odly EXTREMELY sensitive to base timing. 2* either way off the optimum timing is 1-2 hp peak 4* you can see a change of 4 to 6 hp.. This is alot for a car that does not make much to begin with.

In reguards to the intake side of things.. this has been tested many times and documented on line. If you want to test yourself get two ferncos and play with piping lengths.. once you the best make a permant solution. (Though it has been found for the 4AGE LP engine that shorter=better for peak hp).

[dickita15]

When a BoD guy speaks, so clearly, maybe we should pay attention.

Nah, I just speak for one IT racer. I have no idea if anyone on the CRB or the BOD would share my opinion on this. Probably only one other person on the BoD that has much of an understanding of the philosophy of IT, maybe two. The CRB of course understands us a lot better.

[Spinnetti]

Trust the Process Luke.
If a competitor requests a car be classed in a second class just run it thru the process with the new class power to weight and call it a day.
Trust the process.

Thats all I'm sayin.. gimme a while to acclimate and decide if I wanna go down. Until then lemme keep runnin.. some of the other ideas are side trackkin...

[Matt93SE]

Probably only one other person on the BoD that has much of an understanding of the philosophy of IT, maybe two. The CRB of course understands us a lot better.
You sure about that? they don't seem to understand the philosophy of much lately...

just sayin'...
:)

[RacerBill]

I'm 100% sure you would see some gains from a tuneable ECU. It may not be top end but you can spend a lot of time and money expanding area under the curve which is just as important.

How about exhaust? Have you had Burns or some one do computer modeling on your exhaust/header/merge collector design? Decent gains there for most who have tried it.

Every time I think I'm at 90% or whatever development I've found 5 other things to do/try.

Jeff: Do you realize what you are saying here???????

"I'm 100% sure you would see some gains from a tuneable ECU. It may not be top end but you can spend a lot of time and money expanding area under the curve which is just as important." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"How about exhaust? Have you had Burns or some one do computer modeling on your exhaust/header/merge collector design? Decent gains there for most who have tried it." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$

"Every time I think I'm at 90% or whatever development I've found 5 other things to do/try." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Do you hear what you're writing?????? There may be some guys out there who have that kind of money to spend, but a lot of us don't. This is very discretionary stuff.

I have spent almost $2k this year, just for basic stuff, like an engine, hubs, belts, membership, entry fee for a race I did not make.... etc. I have a stock suspension which I need to upgrade (another $1500 - $2000), and then another $1200 in entry fees for the rest of the year.

I don't have any Panasports to sell to finance 15x6 wheels, so I've got to hump 45-50lb wheels and tires (don't know how many more years I can keep doing that). I happened to luck out when my car was moved from A to B that the wheels I had were all 6" and I did not have to buy anymore (the spec line for my car prohibits going down to 14").

I understand your comments and know that they are true. And I understand that it takes bucks (sometimes BIG bucks) to run up front. But it is taking bigger and bigger bucks every year just to be able to get out onto the track. Please make it just a little easier for us. Thanks for listening.

[lateapex911]

Jeff: Do you realize what you are saying here???????

"I'm 100% sure you would see some gains from a tuneable ECU. It may not be top end but you can spend a lot of time and money expanding area under the curve which is just as important." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"How about exhaust? Have you had Burns or some one do computer modeling on your exhaust/header/merge collector design? Decent gains there for most who have tried it." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$

"Every time I think I'm at 90% or whatever development I've found 5 other things to do/try." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Do you hear what you're writing?????? There may be some guys out there who have that kind of money to spend, but a lot of us don't. This is very discretionary stuff.

I have spent almost $2k this year, just for basic stuff, like an engine, hubs, belts, membership, entry fee for a race I did not make.... etc. I have a stock suspension which I need to upgrade (another $1500 - $2000), and then another $1200 in entry fees for the rest of the year.

I don't have any Panasports to sell to finance 15x6 wheels, so I've got to hump 45-50lb wheels and tires (don't know how many more years I can keep doing that). I happened to luck out when my car was moved from A to B that the wheels I had were all 6" and I did not have to buy anymore (the spec line for my car prohibits going down to 14").

I understand your comments and know that they are true. And I understand that it takes bucks (sometimes BIG bucks) to run up front. But it is taking bigger and bigger bucks every year just to be able to get out onto the track. Please make it just a little easier for us. Thanks for listening.

Bill, Jeff was responding to a post listing an engine build. I think he was suggesting possible avenues to find more power.

Now, each of us has our own balance point when it comes to deciding where to chase the speed. Track time? Tires? Trick headers? Hiring a Daytona Prototypes engineer to set up our chassis?

Laugh at the last one, but, I understand a SM guy did something similar.

Point being, there's no upper limit. I think there are some basic cornerstones in the IT rules (no cams, no full cage, etc) that will make uber spending somewhat of a bad return for the investment proposition, BUT, it's going to be expensive to be the fastest...no matter what... if the class is popular.

You finish by asking him to make it easy on us. How can he do that? What are you referring to?

[JeffYoung]

I absolutely realize what I am saying, and it is all true, and no "rules" can fix any of this.

Does it cost those dollars to run IT? No.

Does it cost those dollars to run up front in IT in a competitive region? Yes.

No way to fix that, nor should we try, nor do I intend to try.


Jeff: Do you realize what you are saying here???????

"I'm 100% sure you would see some gains from a tuneable ECU. It may not be top end but you can spend a lot of time and money expanding area under the curve which is just as important." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

"How about exhaust? Have you had Burns or some one do computer modeling on your exhaust/header/merge collector design? Decent gains there for most who have tried it." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$

"Every time I think I'm at 90% or whatever development I've found 5 other things to do/try." = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Do you hear what you're writing?????? There may be some guys out there who have that kind of money to spend, but a lot of us don't. This is very discretionary stuff.

I have spent almost $2k this year, just for basic stuff, like an engine, hubs, belts, membership, entry fee for a race I did not make.... etc. I have a stock suspension which I need to upgrade (another $1500 - $2000), and then another $1200 in entry fees for the rest of the year.

I don't have any Panasports to sell to finance 15x6 wheels, so I've got to hump 45-50lb wheels and tires (don't know how many more years I can keep doing that). I happened to luck out when my car was moved from A to B that the wheels I had were all 6" and I did not have to buy anymore (the spec line for my car prohibits going down to 14").

I understand your comments and know that they are true. And I understand that it takes bucks (sometimes BIG bucks) to run up front. But it is taking bigger and bigger bucks every year just to be able to get out onto the track. Please make it just a little easier for us. Thanks for listening.

[gran racing]

But it is taking bigger and bigger bucks every year just to be able to get out onto the track.

Membership fees have been pretty consistent the past few years.
SFI Head BS - not a result of the ITAC (although next year that one is going to suck)
Entry fees - primarily controlled by the track rental rates

The only area I can potentially see the ITAC causing an increase in a person's budget to just get out there is if their car was moved from a higher class to ITB requiring a change in wheels.

[erlrich]

I understand your comments and know that they are true. And I understand that it takes bucks (sometimes BIG bucks) to run up front. But it is taking bigger and bigger bucks every year just to be able to get out onto the track. Please make it just a little easier for us. Thanks for listening.

Bill, I know it's not possible for everyone, but it may be time to start looking around for other options to SCCA or NASA.

[quadzjr]

My only concern is still in the classing.. with the 4AGE we are required to build a 10/10ths motor to come up with a output that puts us still 10-15% below classed hp. You would think that the classed hp would be the level that is the 10/10ths engine. some cars can reach their classed percentage with a 7/10ths build, and other don't have a chance.

[lateapex911]

My only concern is still in the classing.. with the 4AGE we are required to build a 10/10ths motor to come up with a output that puts us still 10-15% below classed hp. You would think that the classed hp would be the level that is the 10/10ths engine. some cars can reach their classed percentage with a 7/10ths build, and other don't have a chance.

I agree. But the ITAC assumes ALL can reach 100%. They seemingly feel they must be prudent and conservative or they risk an overdog.

In my opinion I think they blew this one. I've said before, the information they've seen just doesn't support more then 12%, much less higher.
When i was on the ITAC, one member spoke of one guy who he said said he made power. (Yes, you read right, this is rather second hand third hand unproven or unseen info).

A conservative position would have been 20%.

I'm afraid it's just stubborness, and the refusal to class a car at such a low percentage.

It was done on the RX8, based on I think, (IIRC) one or two very legit sources.

So it CAN be done.

The ITAC has seen SCADs of dyno plots and other data to support 15%..still conservative. Yet they refuse. It makes no sense to me. It's hard to understand.
Sadly, it seems like there's a gag order, so we'll never get a straight answer as to why...

[tnord]

do you REALLY think there's a "gag order" jake?

[Andy Bettencourt]

do you REALLY think there's a "gag order" jake?

While I don't think so Travis, it WOULDN'T be unprecidented.

Dear ITAC, class the chassis with that motor in ITB with a 15% multiplier and eliminate one of the last warts. The proof is everywhere.

[gran racing]

do you REALLY think there's a "gag order" jake?

I think there have been / are influences for the ITAC to say less publically. Gag order? Call it whatever you want to.

[tnord]

no one has EVER told me anything of the sort in my short 6 or 7 mos.

and if they did, do you think i'd really follow it?

[JeffYoung]

Back when we were having significant issues with the relationship between the ITAC and teh CRB, and amongst ITAC members, yes, there was a direction to tone down some of the comments on the web and to try and communicate with membership in a more organized fashion with a more unified message.

Looking back, I think some of the comments made by ITAC members about others -- and I include myself in that and in particular some of my comments aobut Lee and others -- were not appropriate. There is a difference between letting our membership know what is going (something we HAVE to do) and airing dirty laundry and disagreements over philosophy on the committee in public (which we should not).

There is at present time no "gag" order, and whether it is apparent to you guys or not, the committee is functioning extremely well, and relations with the CRB are again very good.

The Process was such a fundamental change in how the club in general and IT in particular set car weights that there was some resulting friction, some misunderstandings, and some bad blood. It is a shame that we had to lose valued members like Jake, Andy, and Kirk over that, but their sacrifice -- for lack of a better word -- set the stage for the good times we are enjoying now.

Right now, the CRB has FULL buy in on the Process and the publishing of the Ops Manual with the full support of the CRB is in my view the single best thing to EVER happen to IT. Weighting of cars is as transparent and objective and repeatable as I think could be possible.

While I personally feel the MR2 should be classed at a max of 20%, and probably is a 15% car, there is reasonable disagreement over that. We have seen a lot of dyno sheets, but still nothing that definitively is a 100% IT build with full supporting information. I would say that the 25% the car is classed at -- given the 30% default for multivalve motors in ITB/C -- is on the high end of what is reasonble for the car. Again, I disagree with it, but it isn't totally out of line with what could truly be the case for the car and gains in a full IT build.

At this point, my personal opinion is that the car is not going to be looked at again barring something conclusive like 3-4 guys building maxed out IT motors with full discosure on the builds, and submitting dyno sheets at less than 20% gain.

Again, my personal opinion is the car is heavy, and it is a shame because it should be one of the mainstays in ITB. But it is not so out of whack with the "fuzziness" built into the process so as to be totally uncompetitive.

[JeffYoung]

No, there hasn't. Not at all actually. I think a lot of what you are seeing is that the guys who routinely posted here before being on the ITAC -- Kirk, Jake, Andy, Josh -- have now left it. The existing membership on the ITAC doesn't frequent these boards as often, and so there is less banter on them about IT issues.

Travis and I will I am sure continue to post here and answer questions as best we can about IT goings on. I can tell you that the committee is operating (as I said above) better than it ever has, due to the hard work of folks like Kirk, Jake, Andy, Josh, Scott, Darrin, George, etc. They've given us the tools that make most of the car weighting decisions we make fairly easy.


I think there have been / are influences for the ITAC to say less publically. Gag order? Call it whatever you want to.

[quadzjr]

though I only submitted one 10/10ths IT motor sans build. but I know it was tuned on an engine dyno and header built on it. and a few 8/10ths builds.

However I also submitted prod level builds, street motor with head work, big cams, high compression 12:1 pistons, etc.. I would consider these motors to be well in excess of 10/10th.. wouldn't these be considered 12/10ths builds? This was during the 30% and a 12/10ths motors didn't make It process power.

I plan on submitting my plots and engine build sans certain tolerances and specs. Motor was running and running strong untill the oil pump broke and killing my new engine. Getting multiple people to submit 10/10ths build is going to be very hard.. I mean who would want to sink the thousands of dollars when all data shows that they are going to fall short, and now have a motor that is less reliable and still uncompetive?

But going from 9/10ths to 10/10ths is not going to bridge the gap. at that level you are eekign out 1hp here or there, and workign on area under the curve. We are still some 10+hp off which doesn't seem much that is an additional 10-15% gains from going from 9/10ths to 10/10ths..

I can see how someone can say.. well it hasn't been done and been documented.. But thinking from a logical and standpoint.. why are we worried about pinching pennies on on either 9/10ths or 10/10ths.. when the data presented shows we WAY far away from our spec'ed hp goal.

[lateapex911]

While I personally feel the MR2 should be classed at a max of 20%, and probably is a 15% car, there is reasonable disagreement over that. We have seen a lot of dyno sheets, but still nothing that definitively is a 100% IT build with full supporting information. I would say that the 25% the car is classed at -- given the 30% default for multivalve motors in ITB/C -- is on the high end of what is reasonble for the car. Again, I disagree with it, but it isn't totally out of line with what could truly be the case for the car and gains in a full IT build.

At this point, my personal opinion is that the car is not going to be looked at again barring something conclusive like 3-4 guys building maxed out IT motors with full discosure on the builds, and submitting dyno sheets at less than 20% gain.

Again, my personal opinion is the car is heavy, and it is a shame because it should be one of the mainstays in ITB. But it is not so out of whack with the "fuzziness" built into the process so as to be totally uncompetitive.

Jeff, thanks for responding and engaging with the members at large.

I understand your point about communication...and too much communication. Dirty laundry as you say. In my view, I feel this is a member owned organization, member owned category and member owned classes. I'd rather err on the side of too MUCh communication. Really, there should be no dirty laundry.
As a committee member, i can't remember saying or proposing anything that I was worried about 'getting out'. People always remarked at how committee members needed to have "thick skins" and "were crazy to post" about things. I disagreed. That's the job...interface with the members, understand the category, the members views and distill those views into actionable items. Can't do that if you aren't communicating.

There has been a definite drop off in communication since the mass exodus, and yes, you're right, many of the guys who comunicated were the ones who left the committee. But I think there was still a significant drop off in open back and forth, even considering the membership change. But you make good points regardless.

Anyway, on the MR2, the post above makes good points, and when I was on the ITAC, nobody ever convinced me that the dyno sheets which showed MAYbe 10% improvement could magically get to 25% with some tweak which took them from a 93% or 95% build to a 100% build.
I mean....c'mon, we all KNOW that is just not going to happen.

So, I remain befuddled as to how anyone can defend a 25% classification, and the fact that who ever it is who stood in the way of common sense won't step up and explain it...well, lets just say it's frustrating.

[StephenB]

For the record I thought the thread on the Audi was an example of how they ARE communicating well. They engaged in converstation and explained the reasoning on the decision they made. I really thought they went above and beyond, honestly. I am not sure that other members would have done that in the past. I think the current committee makes decisions based on what they now to the best of their ability and they are willing to explain and defend the decision they made, no excuses. I like how it is going...

Stephen

PS: Never said I agreed but I do support, respect, and accept the decision as it was voted on and passed in the best interest of the class.

[tnord]

i don't think anyone has to "step up and explain it" to anyone other than the other ITAC and CRB members on the call.

i can't speak for the entire committee, but if anyone....ITAC or CRB member says something that Jeff or I disagree with, I don't sense any hesitation to voice our opinion and get deeper into the discussion on the call or on the internal forum. THAT is the place to air out conflicts, not with the entire population.

i don't know what type of work environments you guys work in, but when i have a problem with somebody i don't send out a mass e-mail to our entire division of 400 people to try and get them to change. that is NOT going to make your life any easier.

[Rabbit05]

Travis,
I have to disagree with your position...first off..this is a club. I am not sure if where you work, but do you PAY $$ to be apart of it....?

and it is called sports car CLUB of america...

.......not sports car WORK of america.

There should be transparency of arguments/issue/whatever to the membership..thats why we pay dues. Not to be left in the dark...and we should have a say/hear about in what happens.Things be discussed behind closed doors (not going to dig up the Audi hp number argument again..restraining) should be aired out to the paying membership.

But I do think there is some good communication between the two: membership and "management"......

Could it need improving ?..sure ..:023:

[JeffYoung]

What ECU are you using?

Who designed/built your header adn exhaust?


though I only submitted one 10/10ths IT motor sans build. but I know it was tuned on an engine dyno and header built on it. and a few 8/10ths builds.

However I also submitted prod level builds, street motor with head work, big cams, high compression 12:1 pistons, etc.. I would consider these motors to be well in excess of 10/10th.. wouldn't these be considered 12/10ths builds? This was during the 30% and a 12/10ths motors didn't make It process power.

I plan on submitting my plots and engine build sans certain tolerances and specs. Motor was running and running strong untill the oil pump broke and killing my new engine. Getting multiple people to submit 10/10ths build is going to be very hard.. I mean who would want to sink the thousands of dollars when all data shows that they are going to fall short, and now have a motor that is less reliable and still uncompetive?

But going from 9/10ths to 10/10ths is not going to bridge the gap. at that level you are eekign out 1hp here or there, and workign on area under the curve. We are still some 10+hp off which doesn't seem much that is an additional 10-15% gains from going from 9/10ths to 10/10ths..

I can see how someone can say.. well it hasn't been done and been documented.. But thinking from a logical and standpoint.. why are we worried about pinching pennies on on either 9/10ths or 10/10ths.. when the data presented shows we WAY far away from our spec'ed hp goal.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Communication is excellent, there is no gag-order, this we know.

But tell us what 'evidence' anyone has provided the ITAC to contradict the piles of paperwork and web dyno plots that the ITAC has at their disposal to contradict anything more than a 15% adder.

I have heard 2 things in my day. "It's the motor the Formula Atlantic is based on" and "He said that he thinks he can make that number".

Seriously.

I love the Corolla GTS notch. I would love to have one in ITB but even at 15%, it won't make the power (from my research) and would have to outhandle the Hondas to be a winner at a high level. Not sure that is a good bet.

[Knestis]

i don't think anyone has to "step up and explain it" to anyone other than the other ITAC and CRB members on the call.

i can't speak for the entire committee, but if anyone....ITAC or CRB member says something that Jeff or I disagree with, I don't sense any hesitation to voice our opinion and get deeper into the discussion on the call or on the internal forum. THAT is the place to air out conflicts, not with the entire population.

i don't know what type of work environments you guys work in, but when i have a problem with somebody i don't send out a mass e-mail to our entire division of 400 people to try and get them to change. that is NOT going to make your life any easier.

You might be surprised to learn that I *almost* agree with that - on the (huge) assumption that there is then effective, official communication coming out of those bodies, which meets the needs and expectations of the membership. And, it is absolutely necessary that there not be back-channel leaks to FOBM - Friends of Board Members - with the "real inside story."

If we want the membership to buy-in and support the leadership, it's all or nothing: Either open the official channels and don't talk out of school or have an informal public discourse. Problem is that the organizational culture of the Club seems to be inept in this regard, with individuals picking and choosing their channels of communication as suits their individual and/or instantaneous agenda.

K

[JeffYoung]

I don't think it is fair to say there are piles of evidence on this car.

For what it is worth, a lot of the "non-evidence" we heard about this motor back when you were on to keep it at 30% was tossed out the window and not used when we went to 25%. We focused solely on the dyno sheets and information we have in front of us.

I've explained this before, but moves off of the 25% and 30% defaults are going to require a lot more evidence than perhaps they did in the past. I know you disagree with that, and that is fine, but I'm comfortable with where we are. Even a few dyno sheets are too easy to miscontrue, or to "game" the system.

We have for the MR2 maybe 6-8 dyno sheets of varying types of builds with varying types of data for what constitutes those builds. My personal conclusion was this is a 15-20% car, and I voted for 20%. Those that voted for 25% did so - in my opinion -- based on the dyno evidence we had in front of us.




Communication is excellent, there is no gag-order, this we know.

But tell us what 'evidence' anyone has provided the ITAC to contradict the piles of paperwork and web dyno plots that the ITAC has at their disposal to contradict anything more than a 15% adder.

I have heard 2 things in my day. "It's the motor the Formula Atlantic is based on" and "He said that he thinks he can make that number".

Seriously.

I love the Corolla GTS notch. I would love to have one in ITB but even at 15%, it won't make the power (from my research) and would have to outhandle the Hondas to be a winner at a high level. Not sure that is a good bet.

[jjjanos]

Looking back, I think some of the comments made by ITAC members about others -- and I include myself in that and in particular some of my comments aobut Lee and others -- were not appropriate.

I note the word choice -- not appropriate as opposed to incorrect.



There is a difference between letting our membership know what is going (something we HAVE to do) and airing dirty laundry and disagreements over philosophy on the committee in public (which we should not).

Ummm... no. Ordering a rare steak and ordering the partially raw muscle tissue of a castrated sexual-mature bovine are the same thing.

[tnord]

i don't care much what the name of the organization is, if it actually were run more like a business we'd be far better off than we are now. ie....class consolidation. i'm not going to discuss the painful minutae with the public and create infinitely more headaches for myself and make it more difficult for the entire ITAC to operate.

if you guys don't like what i'm doing (or not doing), tell the CRB to kick me off. won't hurt my feelings one bit.

[JeffYoung]

Ok, it was INCORRECT.

And YES, those things are two very different things.

Your posted added zero to the conversation.


I note the word choice -- not appropriate as opposed to incorrect.



Ummm... no. Ordering a rare steak and ordering the partially raw muscle tissue of a castrated sexual-mature bovine are the same thing.

[jjjanos]

Ok, it was INCORRECT.

Then you are correct. You shouldn't have said them. If, however, they were true, but impolite, then self-imposed gag order is still a gag order.


And YES, those things are two very different things.

Both are the same piece of meat. Airing dirty laundry, as in identifying those with philosophical disagreements or those talking out of three-sides of their mouth, is "letting our membership know what is going."

Seems to me that you might be suggesting that is "appropriate" to let the members know that the issue is being discussed, but "inappropriate" to let the members know the actual discussion and who says what.

Thanks, but that's back to the old days of "Thank you for your input."


Your posted added zero to the conversation.

Must have added something since you felt the need to reply.

[Andy Bettencourt]

A couple hours on the Toyota boards will net you what you need to know Jeff. These cars can't make 25% with CAMS. In order to get to that number, guys are running big compression, cams and ITB's.

[JeffYoung]

Go ask the knowledgeable folk on the Z car boards if a motor with specs like that allowed in IT can make 170 whp, 200 at the crank. They'll laugh at you and tell you you need cams, etc.

Go ask the many bulders of Rover V8s if the old Federal injection system (the one on my car) has any performance potential. They'll laugh at you and tell you to get a four barrell and a cam.

An IT build is a specialized beast. For only a few motors do we truly know what gains can be reailzed. More and more I'm learning that the "knowledge" base on most motors simply doesn't apply to an IT build.

Estimating gains is a hell of a lot harder than I originally thought it was going to be.


A couple hours on the Toyota boards will net you what you need to know Jeff. These cars can't make 25% with CAMS. In order to get to that number, guys are running big compression, cams and ITB's.

[JeffYoung]

Aren't you the Pants guy? If so that explains a lot. Thank you for your input, or actually lack of it.


Then you are correct. You shouldn't have said them. If, however, they were true, but impolite, then self-imposed gag order is still a gag order.



Both are the same piece of meat. Airing dirty laundry, as in identifying those with philosophical disagreements or those talking out of three-sides of their mouth, is "letting our membership know what is going."

Seems to me that you might be suggesting that is "appropriate" to let the members know that the issue is being discussed, but "inappropriate" to let the members know the actual discussion and who says what.

Thanks, but that's back to the old days of "Thank you for your input."



Must have added something since you felt the need to reply.

[mossaidis]

All is fair in love, war and it.com. :)

[lateapex911]

i don't care much what the name structure of the organization is, if it actually were run more like a business we'd be far better off than we are now. ie....class consolidation. i'm not going to discuss the painful minutae with the public and create infinitely more headaches for myself and make it more difficult for the entire ITAC to operate.

if you guys don't like what i'm doing (or not doing), tell the CRB to kick me off. won't hurt my feelings one bit.

Travis, it aint a business. It's a CLUB. COMPLETELY different. When I was on the ITAC, my ultimate boss was YOU. And the members. Seriously, lots of committee guys don't get the big picture. They love the back room insulation. The BoD serves the members. And so on down the line.

It isn't about making it easy on yourself.

I am still in favor of publishing the voting records of members on all votes.
Transparency is the best antiseptic, and when that's lacking, assumptions go all haywire.

If you want to be a committee member for a business, well that's fine.

[JeffYoung]

I agree we should be as transparent as we can be.

However, there needs to be SOME protection for what is said on the committee. We have to have some ability for some members to feel that they can have frank discussions without fear of getting an internet tar and feathering.

It's my personal approach to try and lay out all of my thinking on a particular issue here or on the Brown Board if so asked. But I also understand that others would rather that just the committee's viewpoint in the aggregate be expressed here and that is fine. That's a personal choice, and I think for the most part it has worked ok (lately).



Travis, it aint a business. It's a CLUB. COMPLETELY different. When I was on the ITAC, my ultimate boss was YOU. And the members. Seriously, lots of committee guys don't get the big picture. They love the back room insulation. The BoD serves the members. And so on down the line.

It isn't about making it easy on yourself.

If you want to be a committee member for a business, well that's fine.

[jjjanos]

I agree we should be as transparent as we can be.

However, there needs to be SOME protection for what is said on the committee. We have to have some ability for some members to feel that they can have frank discussions without fear of getting an internet tar and feathering.

Because they are discussing double-super-secret HP gain numbers that they received from someone on pain of death if revealed to the membership? I would be hard-pressed to list any discussion other than those involving proprietary information that warrants embargo.

The committees aren't deciding whether or not we should fund the Manhattan Project to defend us from the tyranny of EMRA.

[JeffYoung]

You are right, we are not. However we are doing something that involves a fair amount of difficulty -- getting people to volunteer to spend a minimum of 4 and more like 10-15 hours a month on a committee doing fairly thankless work. Adding in "you will get lambasted for anything and everything you say on committee on the internet" to that and you radically reduce the number of good folks who will want to do this.

I am 100% in agreement with you that all data we consider in making decisions on gain, or stock hp, should be open to membership. What I am saying is that some of the discussions, argument, and personal opinions on how to interpret that data should be left to the individual committee member as to whether they want to disclose it or not.

[JoshS]

Jeff is spot-on here. Those who think that the calls should be recorded and the transcript published on the internet are living in some kind of fantasy world. The volunteer pool will go to zero.

There is nothing wrong with the current system. The current system is that the committee makes 20 or 30 judgement calls every month. The results of those judgement calls are published, but not all of the deliberations that go into them. Individual committee members might have disagreed but once the judgement call is made, all agree to support the committee decision. It's the nature of committee work (whether it's for a commercial business or a volunteer club, it doesn't matter.)

[lateapex911]

Jeff is spot-on here. Those who think that the calls should be recorded and the transcript published on the internet are living in some kind of fantasy world. The volunteer pool will go to zero.



I disagree.
I'd bet that Andy, and kirk would be cool with that.
I know I would.
So three is more than zero.
I'd also bet that Jeff, and you would be fine having everything you've ever said public.
So that's five. And honestly, that's a pretty good bunch of five, (if I do say so myself, LOL)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Go ask the knowledgeable folk on the Z car boards if a motor with specs like that allowed in IT can make 170 whp, 200 at the crank. They'll laugh at you and tell you you need cams, etc.

Go ask the many bulders of Rover V8s if the old Federal injection system (the one on my car) has any performance potential. They'll laugh at you and tell you to get a four barrell and a cam.

An IT build is a specialized beast. For only a few motors do we truly know what gains can be reailzed. More and more I'm learning that the "knowledge" base on most motors simply doesn't apply to an IT build.

Estimating gains is a hell of a lot harder than I originally thought it was going to be.

Fair enough, and excellent examples. But these guys run on actual dynos these days, not 'what they think they know from 20 years ago'. The evidence is there with Prod-like mods that can't even make 25%.

It's there, you just have to want to see it.

[Matt93SE]

I'm all for more transparency too. I'd love to see exactly why some of these "bad" decisions were made and figure out who I need to lambast and beat some sense into.

i.e. the "no non-UDSM engines in ST because of lack of availability and policability"
you can buy most of the suggested engines on ebay all day long, and how hard is it to provide a factory service manual in english? what else do they need?
Policing another 20 non-US engines is just as easy as policing the 1000 or so ones available in the States. Nobody can be an expert on them all- especially your local tech guy... so what's a couple more engines added to the list?
Just sayin... :)

[JeffYoung]

I've seen a lot of it, and I understand where you are coming from. Some of my thinking on the MR2 is based on the fact that cammed motors, etc. don't seem to make big power either.

But that can be tricky road to go down.

My point is that dyno plots with "Prod like" mods can be deceiving. The L24 is a really good example. If you told most very knowledgeable engine builders without IT experience that the Nissan L24 with stock carbs and cam could make 200 crank hp they'd laugh, even if you had dyno sheets to prove it. And to prove their point, they'd whip out (and do whip out) a dyno sheet showing some car that was "cammed" with a ok exhaust, a sorta sloppy build, stroked and with Webers but tuned poorly making the same power.

An IT build is about precision, and getting very small bit right. I never fully realized this until I started paying attention to the small stuff.

And I've yet to see an MR2 build that -- in my opinion -- approaches the time, level of detail, research, tuning etc. that have gone into the top flight Miata, Z car, RX7, BMW, etc. IT motors.


Fair enough, and excellent examples. But these guys run on actual dynos these days, not 'what they think they know from 20 years ago'. The evidence is there with Prod-like mods that can't even make 25%.

It's there, you just have to want to see it.

[tnord]

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.

[jjjanos]

You are right, we are not. However we are doing something that involves a fair amount of difficulty -- getting people to volunteer to spend a minimum of 4 and more like 10-15 hours a month on a committee doing fairly thankless work. Adding in "you will get lambasted for anything and everything you say on committee on the internet" to that and you radically reduce the number of good folks who will want to do this.

If the membership wants to hound these volunteers to the point that there are no more volunteers, it is the membership's own damn fault and that's the type of club the membership wants. Moreover, justified criticism almost certainly would be leveled at only foolish things ("we know a prod motor will get 50% gain, so this motor is capable of that", "it's the same motor in the FBMW!", "all 1.4567 4-cylinder motors are alike in what you can gain in IT-trim") a/o controversial items ("We need to merge IT and Prod into a single category.", "I don't care what the membership wants, the Club needs to do X.").


I am 100% in agreement with you that all data we consider in making decisions on gain, or stock hp, should be open to membership. What I am saying is that some of the discussions, argument, and personal opinions on how to interpret that data should be left to the individual committee member as to whether they want to disclose it or not.

You mean .. We had estimates of stock HP of 82, 85, 86 and 94. We had IT-gains estimates of 1.07, 1.17, 1.18 and 1.23. We picked 94hp and gains of 1.23?

While there is some value in this information, transparency sort of demands that we know who supported 1.23 and 94hp verus 94hp and only a 7% gain and that we know *why*.



There is nothing wrong with the current system. The current system is that the committee makes 20 or 30 judgement calls every month. The results of those judgement calls are published, but not all of the deliberations that go into them. Individual committee members might have disagreed but once the judgement call is made, all agree to support the committee decision. It's the nature of committee work (whether it's for a commercial business or a volunteer club, it doesn't matter.)

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.

As for the group-think.. joining a committee does not mean that one starts to worship Landru and becomes on of the body. It's not the job of the minority to defend the decision of the majority -- that rests with the majority.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And I've yet to see an MR2 build that -- in my opinion -- approaches the time, level of detail, research, tuning etc. that have gone into the top flight Miata, Z car, RX7, BMW, etc. IT motors.

And I will buy this too. But I bet you haven't seen a 90% build make more than 5-10% gains.

[Andy Bettencourt]

...and I am not even reading the Travis, JJJ, Jake thing. I fully believe there is a time to be transparent and a time to let other talk for themselves, should they want to. If you have issues with that, you have issues with the people who are totally SILENT, not those who won't speak for others.