ITAC News

[JeffYoung]

Ok, so we had a productive call tonight. Gist of it was:

1. A fair amount of time spent discussing the update/backdate issue discussed in Ron Earp's thread below. This one remains under consideration, and any member input on it would be appreciated. Basically, it appears have a situation where there is "older" language in the rule (the "don't create a model" sentence) that may be unecessary after the VIN rule changed.

2. We worked more on the 240s -- David, the request was sent back from the CRB to make sure that our classification recommendation was correct. After further thought, we decided to put it out for member comment.

3. We handled a few letters classifying and processing a few cars.

4. We had a lengthy discussion about the 30% default rule in ITB in an effort to try and figure out what the right thing to do for the class is now. Matter remains open and under discussion.

I'm open to any questions about my own personal beliefs/opinions on the above.

Thanks.

Jeff

[lateapex911]

Jeff-
THANKYOU for communicating the goings on. It is much appreciated. Thanks to the ITAC for supporting the concept as well as the CRB.

"The 240"...as in the 240Z?? Or a Volvo 240?

VERY GLAD, THRILLED, to hear the 30% is getting airtime.

Thankyou ITAC for your time spent on this issue.
I feel it is perhaps the only thorn in the side remaining, the Process is awesome, but that is a huge tripping point in my eyes. (As you, cough, dead horse, cough, know. ;) )

[JeffYoung]

Volvo 240s, sorry.

We are also taking a look to make sure -- on our own initiative -- that all of what we view (although I think we'd all appreciate member input on what these cars are) as the most "popular" 7-10 cars in ITB have been through the Process. That will include a second look at the 142 with more accurate hp numbers, the 2002, the Swift, etc.

I personally go back and forth on the 1.3. I've said before I would vote against it.

However, in doing some historical research, there were good reasons for it that haven't really been discussed here. More importantly, I personally think the goal at this point is to do whatever does the least harm to the class, and more and more I personally think changing weights on cars by going back to a 1.25 default would be more disruptive. If we get the gain numbers right, what the default "is" shouldn't matter, or matter most on new cars coming into the class. We should have decent power numbers on the contenders and ultimately that will be what is used to get the class straightened out.

But I remain open to further (reasonable! lol) discussions about it.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, I HOPE you guys think bigger picture and future picture. A year or two or three from now, think about two cars with the same power specs, same HP dyno sheets being moved into ITB from ITA. Nobody should have to make a case to change one OFF the 'standard 30%" default when it's already at the category wide default..as it was in ITA...just because it has a "B" on the door now.

Use the ability to move off default for specifics...Hondas that overachieve, Toyotas that underachieve, etc. ;)

Get the froundation right...build on that.

[JeffYoung]

I do think we are trying to think big picture.

To me, the chances of a 4-valve car (or any car really) getting moved from A to B are pretty low at this point. I think it more likely that shifting 4 valves for which we have no documentation from 30% to 25% would be more dangerous.

But I am wide open on this one to more discussion.


Jeff, I HOPE you guys think bigger picture and future picture. A year or two or three from now, think about two cars with the same power specs, same HP dyno sheets being moved into ITB from ITA. Nobody should have to make a case to change one OFF the 'standard 30%" default when it's already at the category wide default..as it was in ITA...just because it has a "B" on the door now.

Use the ability to move off default for specifics...Hondas that overachieve, Toyotas that underachieve, etc. ;)

Get the froundation right...build on that.

[Russ Myers]

Jeff, since there are still a few of us racing Pinto's, could you guys have a look at it as well???

Russ

[gran racing]

Thank you for the update and continued communication Jeff. It's truly appreciated.

Also glad to hear the multivalve factor is being discussed further. I agree that ideally it doesn't matter what the default is if the group gets the gain numbers right, the reality is not as simple otherwise we wouldn't have a default at all.

If it's decided that a multivalve engine makes more than a 2 valve, should there be a difference between 3 valve and 4 valve engines?

[rsportvolvo]

2. We worked more on the 240s -- David, the request was sent back from the CRB to make sure that our classification recommendation was correct. After further thought, we decided to put it out for member comment.

Jeff,

Thanks for the update. What specific member comments/input are you looking for?

[jjjanos]

Jeff, I HOPE you guys think bigger picture and future picture. A year or two or three from now, think about two cars with the same power specs, same HP dyno sheets being moved into ITB from ITA. Nobody should have to make a case to change one OFF the 'standard 30%" default when it's already at the category wide default..as it was in ITA...just because it has a "B" on the door now.

Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved down from ITA to ITB? Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved from ITB to ITA? The only way that HP number can change is if ITA cars are allowed different engine modifications than an ITB car or if there are some unknown HP-impact from switching a vinyl decal from B to A.

Let's say the Webber Hibachi, a "multi-valve", FWD ITB car with stock HP of 130HP generates IT-trim HP of 130x1.3 or 169HP. As an ITA car, it still[b] must have IT-trim HP of 169HP.
My calcs say the Geo Storm GSI, as an ITB car is [130 x 1.3] x .98 x 17 or 2815 lbs.
The same car as an ITA would be [130 x 1.3] x .98 x 14 = 2310 lbs.

The [B]only way it could go through the process this way: 130 x 1.25 x .98 x 14 = 2215 lbs is if the ITAC would have run it as an ITB car with the 1.25 factor.

And that's why the 1.3 for ITB/ITC looks alot like bunk.

[JeffYoung]

I believe the ITB Pinto was re-reviewed about six eight months ago with a recommendation of no change. However, I'll put it on the list of ITB cars we may take another look at, but again, I don't expect it to move. That motor is very well know, and it's potential gain very well known.


Jeff, since there are still a few of us racing Pinto's, could you guys have a look at it as well???

Russ

[JeffYoung]

My personal opinon is that "multi-valve" means anything with more than 2 per cylinder. I believe all/most of the committee agrees with that.



Thank you for the update and continued communication Jeff. It's truly appreciated.

Also glad to hear the multivalve factor is being discussed further. I agree that ideally it doesn't matter what the default is if the group gets the gain numbers right, the reality is not as simple otherwise we wouldn't have a default at all.

If it's decided that a multivalve engine makes more than a 2 valve, should there be a difference between 3 valve and 4 valve engines?

[JeffYoung]

All of the 24x models we are looking at make somewhere between 100 and 114 hp. At their curb weights, it does not appear to us that the ITB process weight is acheivable. So we calculated both a B and C weight and asked for member input on whether the car should go to B and C. Primarily we are looking for the (very few we understand it) members who are building or interested in building these cars telling us whether they prefer ITB, or ITC.


Jeff,

Thanks for the update. What specific member comments/input are you looking for?

[Chip42]

Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved down from ITA to ITB?...the 1.3 for ITB/ITC looks alot like bunk.

The HP would not change, and everyone knows that. the multiplier is a political thing that many (myself included) dislike and would liek to see gone. there are camps that hold otherwise, and that's not the point of this thread.

the geo storm GSi is a poor example, it is one of the many ITB cars to have never been processed. I honestly think it should be an ITA car at 2310#,assuming 130hp sae net as stock.

[JeffYoung]

Prism looks like an A car to me too, especially if you (Chip) are right about the motor and I suspect you are.

[JeffYoung]

And....DUH....I forgot to introduce our two new members to the ITAC. We have:

1. The very wise and experienced Gary Learned, a long time ITB Volvo driver and poster here. Gary was a very active participant tonight, and his presense is welcome and much appreciated.

2. The much younger but still wise and experienced Chip O'Toole, who has been involved in IT in Florida for a long time and who has an ITB MR2, and wrenches on an ITS Civic. Chip was also a very active participant on the committee last night and his presence is also welcome and much appreciated.

Please welcome these guys to the madness. I can't get all of you here on IT.com or the Brown Board on the calls, but I can tell you the committee is functioning extremely well right now. A great bunch of guys, and the CRB folks are very supportive of what we do.

[gran racing]

Nice additions. :happy204:

[CRallo]

Hey Jeff, what about the extra weight that the Prelude needs? :D :p



Nice additions. :happy204:
+1

Welcome and thank you!!!

[jjjanos]

The HP would not change, and everyone knows that. the multiplier is a political thing that many (myself included) dislike and would liek to see gone. there are camps that hold otherwise, and that's not the point of this thread.

But that is the answer to lateapex911's question regarding moving cars up or down between ITA and ITB.

For a 100 stock HP car with multi-valves, then if the HP-gain for a car is determined to be 130 HP, then that number, regardless of where that car gets reclassed is 130 HP. It isn't a 120 HP ITA car and a 130HP ITB car. It either is a 120 HP car or it is a 130 HP car. Period, end of story.

[JeffYoung]

You are missing a key point. The defaults are defaults used in the absence of other evidence.

If a car is getting moved, it's mostly likely going to be done with data, meaning we know the actual gain, and the default is irrelevant.

While I'm not a personal fan of the 1.3 default, it does not seem to me to be the huge issue you guys make it out to be.


But that is the answer to lateapex911's question regarding moving cars up or down between ITA and ITB.

For a 100 stock HP car with multi-valves, then if the HP-gain for a car is determined to be 130 HP, then that number, regardless of where that car gets reclassed is 130 HP. It isn't a 120 HP ITA car and a 130HP ITB car. It either is a 120 HP car or it is a 130 HP car. Period, end of story.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If we get the gain numbers right, what the default "is" shouldn't matter, or matter most on new cars coming into the class.

True, but consider how hard it is to 'change' to more accurate numbers. The default hurts until you prove the negative, which has historically proven VERY hard to do.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved down from ITA to ITB? Why would the IT-trim HP change for a car being moved from ITB to ITA? The only way that HP number can change is if ITA cars are allowed different engine modifications than an ITB car or if there are some unknown HP-impact from switching a vinyl decal from B to A.



This is really the crux of it. It's NOT class dependent. Set it at 25% and do the work it takes to prove it is 30%, if it is. Simple.

[Andy Bettencourt]

1. A fair amount of time spent discussing the update/backdate issue discussed in Ron Earp's thread below. This one remains under consideration, and any member input on it would be appreciated. Basically, it appears have a situation where there is "older" language in the rule (the "don't create a model" sentence) that may be unecessary after the VIN rule changed.



As was discussed, only one real opinion thinks there is an issue. Simplify the wording if you have to but you may not. A model is a CAR, not a trim or option package. Miata, Mustang, S2000, CRX, Civic, etc are MODELS.

You put bumpers from a 1986 RX-7 on a 1991, you haven't created a model, you have simply backdated a piece that is allowed per the rules because the cars are on the same spec line.

[Chip42]

a real problem is the lack of an agreed definition of "model" in the GCR or amongst a random sampling of members. thus the difference of oppinions. I don't like rules that can be read to mean contradictory things by different people, especially when those people are intelligent, experienced, understand the topic, and honestly not trying to find a loophole to exploit.

that's the situation that seems to exist with the "make a model" language, and even thoough the reading is unbalanced in favor of the more liberal reading to which you subscribe, extrapolating the number of forum participants to the number of active members means thatthere are stilla few hundred people in the opposite camp. agree upon the intention, wether it is historically consistant or not, and move forward with everyone on the same page.

FWIW andy, I read it as you do, though I read "model" in this case as spec line, due to cases where the trim level IS alone on a spec line and has unique equipment not found on other trims of the same "model" in other trims. ex: Civic Si (any of them).

[Andy Bettencourt]

FWIW andy, I read it as you do, though I read "model" in this case as spec line, due to cases where the trim level IS alone on a spec line and has unique equipment not found on other trims of the same "model" in other trims. ex: Civic Si (any of them).

And this will be the trouble if they want to change the rule I guess. SOME spec lines have trim levels - typically when that trim level includes an engine of unique design. Two good examples that exemplify the differences:

Honda CRX: Most trim levels have their own spec line because Honda had different engines by trim level. HF, DX, Si, and on and on. Updating and backdating is VERY limited.

Mazda RX-7: All of the trim levels from a given year all used the same engine. Updating and backdating is almost a free-for-all.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with Chip, but I think a reasonable person could look at that rule and say the "don't create a model" language means you can't build something that wasn' sold off the showroom floor.

But more and more I think that language (the "don't create a model") is a vestige of pre-VIN rule days.

We will most likely be sending a proposal to eliminate the "create a model" language around for member comment in a few months.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with Chip, but I think a reasonable person could look at that rule and say the "don't create a model" language means you can't build something that wasn' sold off the showroom floor.



And the reason I disagree with this line of thinking is because if you run that thought process through it's natural progression, the UD/BD rule is TOTALLY useless. Why tell me I can interchange parts within cars on my spec line and then tell me that if it wasn't as delivered it was illegal?

Makes zero sense.

[JoshS]

I agree with Andy.

And welcome to Gary and Chip, thanks for joining!

[jjjanos]

You are missing a key point. The defaults are defaults used in the absence of other evidence.

Nope, I get it. The same logic works for an unclassified car that is being considered for ITA or ITB. When the ITAC calculates the process weight of the car, the IT-trim better be the same damn number. If a stock 115-HP with no dyno data, multi-valve, FWD car is being considered for ITA or ITB, then the following sets of weights are the only ones on the table:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (ITB)

versus

115 x 1.3 x 14 x .98 = 2050 (ITA)
115 x 1.3 x 17 x .98 = 2490 (ITB)

THIS cannot be the two weights being considered:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (ITB)

And that's when the car being considered is a total blank slate.

I don't give a damn what the process says. The same motor cannot have 2 different IT-trim HPs. End of story.

If would be classified at 2050 as an ITA car and cannot get to that weight, then the car is a 2490 ITB car. Period. End of story. Cue the house lights.


While I'm not a personal fan of the 1.3 default, it does not seem to me to be the huge issue you guys make it out to be.

That's 100 pounds of weight. If 100 pounds isn't important, then round the weigts to the nearest 100 pound increment...

It is important.

[JeffYoung]

I disagree. It doesn't render the rule useless. It allows an 85 Civic Sux to run the "bigger" brakes from an 87 Civic Sux so long as nothing else on the tub changed and those cars were on the same spec line. With the VIN rule, this would have normally been technically illegal.

The VIN rule's place in all of this should not be overlooked. It would have technically prevented you from putting pieces from an 87 Civic Sux on an identical bodied 85 Civic Sux -- but the update/backdate rule created an exception for that so long as you were not creating a new model that was never sold off the showroom floor.

Kirk can chime in here, but what you are proposing seems to be pretty contrary to the original intent of IT when the rule was written, by allowing "Frankenstein" models that never came from the factory floor.

All of that said, but I think the correct approach is to fix the rule to comply with what people are doing, since that interpretation/approach (yours) is just as reasonable.


And the reason I disagree with this line of thinking is because if you run that thought process through it's natural progression, the UD/BD rule is TOTALLY useless. Why tell me I can interchange parts within cars on my spec line and then tell me that if it wasn't as delivered it was illegal?

Makes zero sense.

[JeffYoung]

We could do this forever......

Why do you personally care -- other than for theoretical purity -- what the car weighs in A v. B?

Isn't it's relative competitiveness in the class what matters?

Yes, the motor can have two different IT trim power levels. They aren't (the A car and the B car) competing against each other, so the "disparity" just doesn't matter except in a theoretical sense.



Nope, I get it. The same logic works for an unclassified car that is being considered for ITA or ITB. When the ITAC calculates the process weight of the car, the IT-trim better be the same damn number. If a stock 115-HP with no dyno data, multi-valve, FWD car is being considered for ITA or ITB, then the following sets of weights are the only ones on the table:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (ITB)

versus

115 x 1.3 x 14 x .98 = 2050 (ITA)
115 x 1.3 x 17 x .98 = 2490 (ITB)

THIS cannot be the two weights being considered:
115 x 1.25 x 14 x .98 = 1970 (ITA)
115 x 1.25 x 17 x .98 = 2395 (ITB)

And that's when the car being considered is a total blank slate.

I don't give a damn what the process says. The same motor cannot have 2 different IT-trim HPs. End of story.

If would be classified at 2050 as an ITA car and cannot get to that weight, then the car is a 2490 ITB car. Period. End of story. Cue the house lights.



That's 100 pounds of weight. If 100 pounds isn't important, then round the weigts to the nearest 100 pound increment...

It is important.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I disagree. It doesn't render the rule useless. It allows an 85 Civic Sux to run the "bigger" brakes from an 87 Civic Sux so long as nothing else on the tub changed and those cars were on the same spec line. With the VIN rule, this would have normally been technically illegal.

The VIN rule's place in all of this should not be overlooked. It would have technically prevented you from putting pieces from an 87 Civic Sux on an identical bodied 85 Civic Sux -- but the update/backdate rule created an exception for that so long as you were not creating a new model that was never sold off the showroom floor.

Kirk can chime in here, but what you are proposing seems to be pretty contrary to the original intent of IT when the rule was written, by allowing "Frankenstein" models that never came from the factory floor.

All of that said, but I think the correct approach is to fix the rule to comply with what people are doing, since that interpretation/approach (yours) is just as reasonable.

Jeff - if your defination of a 'frankenstein' model is one that was never delivered off the showroom floor, how do you think the UD/BD rule can be legally used? If you use your 'as delivered', EACH CAR needs to be 100% correct for it's model year, without any updating or backdating.

I see no way a car can be AD and have UD/BD. Impossible. The rule SAYS you can swap assemblies bewteen cars on the spec line. It just plain says so. It says NOTHING about not permiting freak trim mix-ups. A MODEL is very simple guys. You aren't changing an RX-7 to an RX-8 or a Miata.

In your thought process, can you take a 1991 RX7 and put the 1986 (different style) front bumper cover on?

If you say no, I wonder why the UD/BD doesn't apply. You haven't created a new model.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We could do this forever......

Why do you personally care -- other than for theoretical purity -- what the car weighs in A v. B?

Isn't it's relative competitiveness in the class what matters?

Yes, the motor can have two different IT trim power levels. They aren't (the A car and the B car) competing against each other, so the "disparity" just doesn't matter except in a theoretical sense.

We care Jeff because if you have a car that doesn't make 30%, you have to go a billion more miles before you can get the weight correct. SEE MR2.

Why not put all new B cars with muti-valves at 50%? Why not 75%? Why not all cars with 5 lugs in ITB at 40%? Stupid examples yes, but the point is you are creating a MUCH harder road to a correct classification for no good reason. If you think some MV cars in ITB make 30%, then class them there using the dyno and power data that supports the hypothosis. Don't artifically handicap SOME of the cars then ask them to prove otherwise.

[JeffYoung]

Go back and read what I posted. I gave you an example.




Jeff - if your defination of a 'frankenstein' model is one that was never delivered off the showroom floor, how do you think the UD/BD rule can be legally used?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Go back and read what I posted. I gave you an example.

And I responded. That car never came with those brakes, so no-go as an 'off the showroom floor' example. That is a car that 'never existed'....no?

How about my bumper cover example?

[JeffYoung]

I could say I didn't create anything Andy, and that I'm trying to deal with the legacy of a problem that has its genesis in discussions from a long time ago.

But what is most important to me right now is not to fuck up ITB. We classed some cars in B at 30% default. Despite doing that, other than the MR2 which I agree got a difficult deal, the sky is not falling.

Changing the default now could have an impact on the overall competitive balance of the class.

We are looking at all of ITB to try to clean this up. I'm not sure how it will turn out, but the primary consideration will be to make sure we don't screw up what is now a very competitive class.


We care Jeff because if you have a car that doesn't make 30%, you have to go a billion more miles before you can get the weight correct. SEE MR2.

Why not put all new B cars with muti-valves at 50%? Why not 75%? Why not all cars with 5 lugs in ITB at 40%? Stupid examples yes, but the point is you are creating a MUCH harder road to a correct classification for no good reason. If you think some MV cars in ITB make 30%, then class them there using the dyno and power data that supports the hypothosis. Don't artifically handicap SOME of the cars then ask them to prove otherwise.

[JeffYoung]

It did come with those brakes. As an 87 model. The rule allows you to put them on your 85 so long as the rest of the 85 is identical to the 87. The VIN rule would have prevented that. Update/backdate allows it. Your "new" car is technically an 85, but is identical to the 87 model and no different from what came off the show room floor.

Your RX7 example would be illegal under this line of thinking. Just like my use of coupe bumpers on my convert (coupe bumpers are lighter). I "always" read the rule like you do, but the fallacy with your position is that you come up with a tortured definition of model to evade the clear language in the rule. "Model" can't mean RX8 v. Miata. That's silly almost. No updating/backdating could turn an RX8 into a Miata.

I'm convinced that the "no new model" language means what I think it means, but it is contrary to how we have all intepreted the rule, and how it should be intrepreted post-VIN rule.

We are working on something for membership comment on that.


And I responded. That car never came with those brakes, so no-go as an 'off the showroom floor' example. That is a car that 'never existed'....no?

How about my bumper cover example?

[Andy Bettencourt]

It did come with those brakes. As an 87 model. The rule allows you to put them on your 85 so long as the rest of the 85 is identical to the 87. The VIN rule would have prevented that. Update/backdate allows it. Your "new" car is technically an 85, but is identical to the 87 model and no different from what came off the show room floor.

So in your example you have to UD/BD the entire car to a specific year? No way. The UD/BD rule specifically allows individual items to be UD/BD'd amoungst cars on a spec line.


Your RX7 example would be illegal under this line of thinking. Just like my use of coupe bumpers on my convert (coupe bumpers are lighter). I "always" read the rule like you do, but the fallacy with your position is that you come up with a tortured definition of model to evade the clear language in the rule. "Model" can't mean RX8 v. Miata. That's silly almost. No updating/backdating could turn an RX8 into a Miata.



But your coupe to vert conversion is SPECIFICALLY illegal as those are different body types.

All I am doing is exactly what it says I can do.

And DON'T change the rule to meet what people are doing, clarify it with better wording should you think its need it, to mean what you WANT it to mean.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Despite doing that, other than the MR2 which I agree got a difficult deal, the sky is not falling.



Because you classed them at a higher 'opening' weight as the rest of the class. Of course you aren't seeing an effect on the class, they are too heavy.

[mossaidis]

I am NOT reading this entire thread now, I am work...(don't read the thread mickey, don't read the thread).

here is an example I can provide that DOES work under the current rules. 92-95 Honda Civic Si all came with 9.3" rotors. The 94 came with ABS and 10.2" rotors, larger knuckles, ABS modulator, larger MC and larger booster. I can UD my 92 si with the 94 ABS package less the stuff the rules allow me to change and bingo... i made a IT legal 94 Civic Si MODEL that included the ABS option.

[JeffYoung]

Yep. I think that is what the intent of the rule was originally, essentially as an "in spec line" work around the VIN rule.

Actually the coupe to convert "conversion" IS legal under your analysis becuase they are on the same spec line. I thought that was how you defined "model"?


So in your example you have to UD/BD the entire car to a specific year? No way. The UD/BD rule specifically allows individual items to be UD/BD'd amoungst cars on a spec line.



But your coupe to vert conversion is SPECIFICALLY illegal as those are different body types.

All I am doing is exactly what it says I can do.

And DON'T change the rule to meet what people are doing, clarify it with better wording should you think its need it, to mean what you WANT it to mean.

[JeffYoung]

Really? So you think the 4 valve cars are struggling in ITB?


Because you classed them at a higher 'opening' weight as the rest of the class. Of course you aren't seeing an effect on the class, they are too heavy.

[Chip42]

We care Jeff because if you have a car that doesn't make 30%, you have to go a billion more miles before you can get the weight correct. SEE MR2.

I have an MR2, and suprise! I do not support the 30% default gain.
But I do understand the worry about a "je ne sais quoi" aspect of cars that are 20+ years newer than others in the class having an overall improved capabiltiy even with IT spec line items being equal (theoretical cars). I don't entirely agree with it, but I understand where it comes from. I think the expected gain was the wrong place to put an adder for this, if there has to be an adder at all. I need some convincing on that second point as well.

the good news is that, other than for the toyota 4A-GE sibs (Mr2, FX16, Corolla AE-86), everything that I am aware of that has been processed using the 30% gain seems to be able to live up to it*. so the "damage done" to the ITCS isn't very wide spread. The damage to the image of "the process" or the reputation of the rules making boards might be worse. I think that the default should be corrected before another car is run against it with zero supporting data, cannot make the gains, and is saddled with the need to prove less than process hp.

The MR2 got moved back to the overall default which I think is still high but others need convincing of. That's ok to the degree that that is how the process is supposed to work. Though I think the burden of proof is being set a bit high in this case, that's the prerogative of the members of the committee, and those I've spoken to about it have reasonable reservations, I'm just not able to spend the coin to satisfy them.

*there's less evidence I'm aware of for the FP-DE BJ Protégé, but i haven't seen any noise about it and it seems pretty strong so maybe that one was lucky and also makes close to 30% gains.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Actually the coupe to convert "conversion" IS legal under your analysis becuase they are on the same spec line. I thought that was how you defined "model"?

Wrong. Read the rule again.

UD/BDing is only permited between cars of the same make, model and body type...

Just because they are on the same spec line doesn't make a vert a coupe.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Really? So you think the 4 valve cars are struggling in ITB?

I love how you lump them all together.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And since two BRILLIANT dudes like Jeff and I read it differently, it must need a clarification. LOL

[JeffYoung]

No, I'm not. The rule is, like this whole rule, not very well written.

It says:


To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating
of components is only permitted within cars of the same make,
model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and
engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.

It defines "make, model and body type" as what is listed on a single Improved Touring spec line.

What that means it that sedans, coupes, converts, etc. should not be listed on the same lines. But they are in many cases and when they are, arguably, you can update/ backdate.

Whole rule needs a clean up, and yes I think one of the things we need to look at in evaluating it is who people have interpreted it over time.


Wrong. Read the rule again.

UD/BDing is only permited between cars of the same make, model and body type...

Just because they are on the same spec line doesn't make a vert a coupe.

[JeffYoung]

Well, that would be because the default is supposed to apply to them a group. Lumped together.




I love how you lump them all together.

[JeffYoung]

I'd argue with that, but that would be pulling a Janoska and I try not to do that!

Tridents for everyone.


And since two BRILLIANT dudes like Jeff and I read it differently, it must need a clarification. LOL

[gran racing]

So you think the 4 valve cars are struggling in ITB?

Looking at some of the level of prepped cars, equipment on them including tire conditions, and drivers, I'm not so sure 100 lbs either direction is going to make or break many of the multivalve cars being driven. That still doesn't mean it couldn't influence what's needed to reach that pointy end though. This all goes back to the on-track performance and how the results are achieved.

For example the Accords, Deuce will be right up front regardless of the 100 lbs or not.


Well, that would be because the default is supposed to apply to them a group. Lumped together.

Based on that comment, it makes it at least sound like the default being used does play a role in the eventual classed outcome. Not trying to be a jerk here and once again, appreciate you sticking this conversation out.

Shortly I'll have my ECU tuned which will be the last of the basic* power adders I can think of. Not sure if it would be helpful to you in any way, but would be willing to share the dyno results with you Jeff and explain what was done to the car to get there.

* I recognize that no matter how well developed a car is, there will always more out there some how some way but gains at a certain point are typically minimal.

[Chip42]

And since two BRILLIANT dudes like Jeff and I read it differently, it must need a clarification. LOL

exactly.

[jjjanos]

We could do this forever......

Jesus F'ing Keerist. You are defending giving the same freaking motor different HP ratings based on whether its in ITA or ITB. So, please enlighten me... what extra modifications can one do in ITB that cannot be done in ITA or is it that a vinyl "A" sucks HP from a motor?


Why do you personally care -- other than for theoretical purity -- what the car weighs in A v. B?

I don't give a frack what the car weighs in A v. B. I do care that if the ITAC says that if a motor is a 137HP motor in IT-trim, that it consistently uses that number. Otherwise, I'll submit their own damn discussions as to why the car they processed using a 1.3 multiplier needs to lose 100lbs.


Isn't it's relative competitiveness in the class what matters? Not according to the ITAC. IT is all about getting the Weight/HP ratio to the targets. Hallelujah! I'm like Paul on the Road to Damascus and I've seen the glory of the Weight/HP ratio.

And even if it is all relative, all this little rule does is ensure relative competitiveness of all the cars incorrectly given a 1.3 multiplier. A car with the same exact IT-HP is going to weigh 100lbs less if it isn't a multi-valve motor.


Yes, the motor can have two different IT trim power levels. They aren't (the A car and the B car) competing against each other, so the "disparity" just doesn't matter except in a theoretical sense.

You are defending giving the same freaking motor different HP ratings based on whether its in ITA or ITB. So, please enlighten me... what extra modifications can one do in ITB that cannot be done in ITA or is it that a vinyl "A" sucks HP from a motor?

It isn't that the motor in B will be competing with the motor in A. It's that two IT-trim motors at 139HP will differ in weight by about 100lbs in the same class.

[Andy Bettencourt]

No, I'm not. The rule is, like this whole rule, not very well written.

It says:


To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdating
of components is only permitted within cars of the same make,
model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), and
engine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.


It defines "make, model and body type" as what is listed on a single Improved Touring spec line.


What that means it that sedans, coupes, converts, etc. should not be listed on the same lines. But they are in many cases and when they are, arguably, you can update/ backdate.


Whole rule needs a clean up, and yes I think one of the things we need to look at in evaluating it is who people have interpreted it over time.


I disagree with this interpretation 100%. It doesn't mean at all that they should be on seperate lines, it means what it says: You can only UD/BD within those parameters on the spec line. No interchanging vert stuff with coupe stuff or sedan stuff or anything that is not what you are presenting as your logbooked car.

RX-7 example: If the GTUs didn't come with the aluminum hood, no ITS car would be allowed to run it even though the vert had it.

[JeffYoung]

That wording defines make, model and body type by what is listed on the spec line. Putting coverts and coupes, or hatches and coupes, or 2+2s and non 2+2s on the same spec line causes a problem because THAT is what defines make/model/body type if you read that literally.

But that is what has been done.


I disagree with this interpretation 100%. It doesn't mean at all that they should be on seperate lines, it means what it says: You can only UD/BD within those parameters on the spec line. No interchanging vert stuff with coupe stuff or sedan stuff or anything that is not what you are presenting as your logbooked car.

RX-7 example: If the GTUs didn't come with the aluminum hood, no ITS car would be allowed to run it even though the vert had it.

[JeffYoung]

Ok Jeff, if your goal was to run me out of patience, then you succeeded. You've run me out of patience. Tired of doing the same dance with you over and over and over and over. Here's what's 100% clear. You like to argue. I get that. You like to argue endlessly. I get that. What I don't get is what you truly WANT other than to show that the ITAC is all wrong, all the time, and ITB and Summit with cars classed using an ad hoc curb weight system was the epitome of how we should class cars nationwide.

I've said I don't agree with the 1.3 default. I undertsand the logical inconsistency in it. You can really save the keystrokes on that.

What I've said over and over and over is that I personally am looking to see what causes the least amount of damage. Getting rid of the default and getting a slew of letters to reprocess multi-valve cars that are presently racing in a very balanced class at 25%, or letting things remain as they are because they seem to work. What is it that YOU want? "Make my car and Charlie's car more competitive" is not an appropriate answer.

And this is completely, totally WRONG:


It isn't that the motor in B will be competing with the motor in A. It's that two IT-trim motors at 139HP will differ in weight by about 100lbs in the same class.

If we "know" what the motor actually makes, we don't use the default. This is going to be true for almost all of the popular cars in ITB, again showing that the time and effort spent on this "issue" is 99% wasted.

The amount of time being spent on ITB by the ITAC is incredibly disproportional to the rest of IT, the rest of IT is suffering some as a result, and the cause of all of this effort is NOT any real issue with the class but rather an issue with a few people, at one track, in the class.

And that is sad.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Which 2 members left the ITAC?

[JeffYoung]

Charlie Broring (he was only on for a few months)

Josh Sirota (long time, highly effective guy who got the Process approved and the Ops Manual formalized -- very much missed)




Which 2 members left the ITAC?

[Chip42]

Jake,

take the AW11 MR2:
Later (87-89) rear brakes are larger, and bolt to the earlier suspension, but the later suspension doesn't bolt onto the earlier tubs due to revised rear engine room stampings and the associated changes to bolt locations. there were a lot of other changes along the line in these cars: bumper contours, tail lights, radiator mounting plane, front brake diameter and thickness, the position of the parking brake handle and many dashboard details, with 3 different types of rear wing (2 piece and no light, single piece with light in middle support, and single piece with LED in the wing) OR with none, the transmission was upgraded to a new PN, which was again upgraded to a new bellhousing, clutch diameter and flywheel, pistons, gudgeon pins, rods, and crank (just rod journal diam), computer, injectors, master cylinder, AFM, wiring harness routing, air filter location, evap system, added a drain plug to the gas tank,... hell they changed the orientation of the letters on the valve cover.

but it's all a MkI MR2. they all share a chassis code, an engine (with the same specs though different levels of revision), and a spec line, and to an uneducated observer are all but identical.

if I swap later brakes onto 85 car, I just made a combination of entities that never existed, by updating along the specline. legal?

if I swap the LED wing onto an 88 car, I just duplicated what is identical, otherwise, to an 89. I just updated an 88 to an 89 but did NOT make a combination that differs (aside from the VIN) from a car sold through a showroom. legal? (obviously)

what's right? and more importantly, why? the less obvious mid-model run changes are what can create "unique" cars. upgraded factory bolt ons are obviously under the intent of the rule, and if nothing else changes there's nothing else to say. but something else always does. so the rule is, under the strictest reading, rendered NEARLY useless.

[JeffYoung]

This is a good exercise.


Jake,

take the AW11 MR2:
Later (87-89) rear brakes are larger, and bolt to the earlier suspension, but the later suspension doesn't bolt onto the earlier tubs due to revised rear engine room stampings and the associated changes to bolt locations. there were a lot of other changes along the line in these cars: bumper contours, tail lights, radiator mounting plane, front brake diameter and thickness, the position of the parking brake handle and many dashboard details, the rear wing came in 3 different types (2 pice, no light, with light in middle support, and with LED in the wing) OR without the thing, the transmission was upgraded to a new PN, pistons, rods, and crank (just rod journal diam), computer, AFM, wiring harness routing, air filter location, evap system, added a drain plug to the gas tank,... hell they changed the orientation of the letters on the valve cover.

but it's all a MkI MR2. they all share a chassis code, an engine (though different generations), and a spec line, and to an uneducated observer are all but identical.

if I swap later brakes onto 85 car, I just made a combination of entities that never existed, by updating along the specline. legal?

if I swap the LED wing onto an 88 car, I just duplicated what is identical, otherwise, to an 89. I just updated an 88 to an 89 but did NOT make a combination that differs (aside from the VIN) from a car sold through a showroom. legal? (obviously)

what's right? and more importantly, why? the less obvious mid-model run changes are what can create "unique" cars. upgraded factory bolt ons are obviously under the intent of the rule, and if nothing else changes there's nothing else to say. but something else always does. so the rule is, under the strictest reading, rendered NEARLY useless.

[ajmr2]

Originally Posted by JeffYoung http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/images/chromium/blue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=325536#post325536)
Despite doing that, other than the MR2 which I agree got a difficult deal, the sky is not falling.



Because you classed them at a higher 'opening' weight as the rest of the class. Of course you aren't seeing an effect on the class, they are too heavy.

Thanks Andy, you speak the truth. And thanks for the acknowledgment Jeff. How nice it would be to revisit the MR2 and make it an example of how the ITAC and the CRB can admit an error and correct it, rather than being the repeated example of a car that was wronged after finally being moved to ITB. Even I'm tired of arguing for it. It would go a long way in my mind to reinforcing the flag waving about keeping current members and bringing new members into the SCCA. Simple fairness in classifications without reverting to preconceived notions. :dead_horse:
My fear as a 21 year member is that the MR2 is an example of how to toss a bone and maintain the illusive status quo.
AJ

[jjjanos]

Ok Jeff, if your goal was to run me out of patience, then you succeeded. You've run me out of patience. Tired of doing the same dance with you over and over and over and over. Here's what's 100% clear. You like to argue. I get that. You like to argue endlessly. I get that. What I don't get is what you truly WANT other than to show that the ITAC is all wrong, all the time, and ITB and Summit with cars classed using an ad hoc curb weight system was the epitome of how we should class cars nationwide.

The 1.3 multiplier has nothing to do with Summit. I believe that, other than me, the people opposed to it race other places. But hey, when the logi or consistency of something is shown to be faulty, why not launch an ad-hominen defense of it?


I've said I don't agree with the 1.3 default. I undertsand the logical inconsistency in it. You can really save the keystrokes on that.

Great. You both oppose it and yet justify it.


What I've said over and over and over is that I personally am looking to see what causes the least amount of damage. Getting rid of the default and getting a slew of letters to reprocess multi-valve cars that are presently racing in a very balanced class at 25%, or letting things remain as they are because they seem to work. What is it that YOU want? "Make my car and Charlie's car more competitive" is not an appropriate answer.

I'm sorry that train left the station long ago and, frankly, is indefensible. A few cars were classified using the 17 ratio. A handful of those newly classified cars have been built. That already threw stability out the window. I've been told that equalizing the pre-FWD/mid-engine Weight:HP ratio with repeatability are the goals. Great, do it.

I don't give a damn about Charlie losing weight and I'm pretty certain that, while the 100% gains on my car aren't 1.3, they are closer to that than 1.25.


If we "know" what the motor actually makes, we don't use the default. This is going to be true for almost all of the popular cars in ITB, again showing that the time and effort spent on this "issue" is 99% wasted.

Read Mr. Young. Read.

You've got the choice of putting a multi-valve car into ITB or ITA. It's the 2005 Nash Rambler. It either makes 125HP or it makes a 130HP. You don't know squat other than the stock because it hasn't been classified.. you have no idea what it can gain as an IT car other than that 100HP stock motor is going to be a 125HP ITA car or a 130HP ITB car. You should only get 1 bite at the apple, and if the ITAC decides that it cannot make weight as a 125HP ITA car, then it needs to be run through as a 125HP ITB car when it first gets classified, NOT a 130HP ITB car.

Do you understand the problem now? Do what ever non-Luddite members of the CRB who read the internet understand the problem now?


The amount of time being spent on ITB by the ITAC is incredibly disproportional to the rest of IT, the rest of IT is suffering some as a result, and the cause of all of this effort is NOT any real issue with the class but rather an issue with a few people, at one track, in the class.

There's that big of a back log in classifying cars? Hell, wait until the ITC guys ask you to drop their weights by 40%! The process is going to bring back ITC racing because these cars are going to be so cheap to race because you'll have to change the brake pads and tires when its time to rebuild your engine. Hell, the cars will be disposable at that point.

[shwah]

While you are looking at the 'popular' B cars, will that include validating the data used to apply a 30% to the 8v A2 Golf/Jetta?

[JeffYoung]

Chris, my personal opinion is yes. I think we need to take a hard look at everything in ITB. Can't speak for everyone else though.

AJ, I understand. I do think this about the MR2. I think that given the data I've seen -- which itself is not conclusive -- 20% is possible and thus the car may only be 5% off. I do agree with Andy that it's hard to argue around the fact that the 30% default rule made it easier to go with 25% on this car.

But, I would add that the committee members who voted for 25% did so because they thought the car could get to that gain level, and as best I could tell for no other reason.

I'd like to see more of those cars in B. They are good for the class. But I think the issue of gain on them is now officially a dead horse....perhaps unfortunately.

[Knestis]

If we think that "multivalve" cars are going to be run through the "what we know" path of the Process, it doesn't MATTER what their default is. I think that's kind of what Jeff Y. is trying to say...

Point is, that's as good an argument for their default being 25% as it is that it be 30% - and the former settles down possible objections that it simply doesn't make sense.

K

[JeffYoung]

Correct and correct.

Only (important) thing to add is that trying to change the default could (a) do some damage to ITB as it is presently constituted OR (b) cause bigger issues with the CRB, etc. such that pushing for the change is not worth it.

I still see this as a minor problem. I don't think any popular competitive cars are going to end up at a default gain rate.


If we think that "multivalve" cars are going to be run through the "what we know" path of the Process, it doesn't MATTER what their default is. I think that's kind of what Jeff Y. is trying to say...

Point is, that's as good an argument for their default being 25% as it is that it be 30% - and the former settles down possible objections that it simply doesn't make sense.

K

[lateapex911]

JWG: Chip states, referring to the effect of the artificial 30% factor used in ITB only:
......The damage to the image of "the process" or the reputation of the rules making boards might be worse. I think that the default should be corrected before another car is run against it with zero supporting data, cannot make the gains, and is saddled with the need to prove less than process hp.




How nice it would be to revisit the MR2 and make it an example of how the ITAC and the CRB can admit an error and correct it, rather than being the repeated example of a car that was wronged after finally being moved to ITB. Even I'm tired of arguing for it. It would go a long way in my mind to reinforcing the flag waving about keeping current members and bringing new members into the SCCA. Simple fairness in classifications without reverting to preconceived notions. :dead_horse:
My fear as a 21 year member is that the MR2 is an example of how to toss a bone and maintain the illusive status quo.
AJ




AJ, I understand. I do think this about the MR2. I think that given the data I've seen -- which itself is not conclusive -- 20% is possible and thus the car may only be 5% off. I do agree with Andy that it's hard to argue around the fact that the 30% default rule made it easier to go with 25% on this car.

I'd like to see more of those cars in B. They are good for the class. But I think the issue of gain on them is now officially a dead horse....perhaps unfortunately.

It's a shame this car got so dicked over and it's now a dead horse...

Jeff, what if the default was 25%?? Would the ITAC have been 'brave' enough to take the 12% dyno sheets and round them to 20%?
See by STARTING at a ridiculous 30%, going to 20 seems like a big deal. But at 25%, not so much.

Chip nails THE major reason on the head. Such an obviously loony, illogical and nonsensical rule makes people not trust the PTB. Distrust in the people you pay is a bad bad thing.

And lets not minimize the difference 5% makes. That's 102 pounds!
(off the top of my head numbers: hp is 112? Difference from 20 to 25% is 6hp)
I don't know about anyone else, but carrying around FOUR cinder blocks because the PTB thinks my engine makes 6 hp more with a 'B' sticker on the side would piss be off royally.
Honestly, I'm shocked more of these guys haven't just gone to NASA and raced in PT whatever......

This is so simple...the ITAC really needs to do the right thing.
DO NOT be fooled into worrying about 'disrupting' the competitive balance of ITB. IF you change the 30% 'caveat' in the Process. (That's it, I'm calling it a 'caveat', not a 'module'!) and you get letters requesting the Yagaroo 2500 4V get reprocessed, do the homework. If it makes more, then class it according to real world known data. If not, do what you would with anything else. The sky will NOT fall.

But lets not say, "I dunno, things look ok now"...That TOTALLY undermines the point of the Process.....

[lateapex911]

If we think that "multivalve" cars are going to be run through the "what we know" path of the Process, it doesn't MATTER what their default is. I think that's kind of what Jeff Y. is trying to say...

Point is, that's as good an argument for their default being 25% as it is that it be 30% - and the former settles down possible objections that it simply doesn't make sense.

K


Correct and correct.

Only (important) thing to add is that trying to change the default could (a) do some damage to ITB as it is presently constituted OR (b) cause bigger issues with the CRB, etc. such that pushing for the change is not worth it.

I still see this as a minor problem. I don't think any popular competitive cars are going to end up at a default gain rate.

I know thats what he's saying, but, the first word you wrote, Kirk, was "IF"...and that's a mighty big IF. IF the ITAC does that now, IF they have data, IF they do that in the future, IF the future ITAC has data...and I'd argue it's MORE likely, given the amount of data that is needed to sway the ITAC (see MR2 as a prime example) that they will NOT have data....

Regarding the CRB, it's clear then that they have NOT bought into the Process if they are digging their heels in on this issue. Or they want it for some other reason.
Either way, it is then politics, and that sucks.
(Yes, I know that to get anywhere you have to give up something, I guess I'm too idealistic...)

[Andy Bettencourt]

This is a good exercise.

True. It seems the MR2 is just like the RX-7 in this respect. I submit all those combinations are legal.

The way I have read - and still read the rules - is simple. Cars with the same, make, model, body type and engine size - on the same spec line, are effectively the same car to the ITCS. You are allowed to interchange parts as you see fit per the 'assembly' restrictions.

Interestingly, the ITCS reads funny. What do we think it means by the 'creation' of a TYPE of car? I think it means you can't create a vert out of a coupe or build some kind of freak-mobile that never exisited as a model.

[quadzjr]

If we break it down to the level of create a model that didn't come off the showroom floor. You are going to have a SLEW of additional classifications. I wonder how many classifications the ITB Mustang would be? In the 2nd gen RX7 example. You would have to classify every different variation of the car. Obviously everybody would run a GTU as with teh current process based on hp, this is irrelevant.

in the civic si example you would have to class the 94' by itself, you would have to classify the verts and coupe independently, All three of the toyota MR chassis would be split up in numerous spec lines..

Or the ITB fiero in atleast 3 different classifications.

the 240 into a few.. The list goes on and on.

All of these multi classifications of the same model of car sharing an engine would have the same spec'ed weight. per the

Which would get us to a time back to the VIN rule days.

How minute do you want to bring this. what if the sheet metal on the floor stampings are slightly different for wind noise on a 2000 model year and not onthe 1999.. does this mean I cannot up/bd and a 99' chassis to a 2000? as they would be technically creating a model. I know this is cutting hairs and brining it down to minute details, and this is not the car show.

side story.. at a car show our number matching chevelle was doing well. we lost first place because our brake lines were made out a galvanized steel (we got from autoparts store) and factory was un-protected steel. Thusly our car we deemed not "original" and we lost to a trailer queen (I was pissed). We did give them a parting burnout through the gears as we drove it home.:happy204:

[ajmr2]

It's a shame this car got so dicked over and it's now a dead horse...
And lets not minimize the difference 5% makes. That's 102 pounds!
Honestly, I'm shocked more of these guys haven't just gone to NASA and raced in PT whatever......


I'm still a firm believer in dancin' with the one you brung, and it's still about the friends I've made, but there are plenty of guys jumping ship, especially younger racers. There are more and more cars with NASA stickers showing up at MARRS & PDX events, and when there's a conflict in event scheduling they go to NASA. Our events suffer accordingly. I hate to see that.
AJ

[Gary L]

Interestingly, the ITCS reads funny. What do we think it means by the 'creation' of a TYPE of car? I think it means you can't create a vert out of a coupe or build some kind of freak-mobile that never exisited as a model.
That's what bugs me about the 'creation' statement. We don't know for sure (or at least can't agree) what a 'model' is, and we really don't have a clue what 'type' means, so it's really difficult to understand what the overall intent was.

One thing is for sure - some time, some place, someone did (or wanted to do) something that drove the additional condition. If you look at the old proposed 1985 national IT ruleset, the update/backdate allowance has apparently always been there, but the 'creation' qualifier was added later.

In any case, my personal leaning would be to leave the former and strike the latter. It then becomes incumbent upon us to keep this in mind when making new classifications.

[jjjanos]

If we think that "multivalve" cars are going to be run through the "what we know" path of the Process, it doesn't MATTER what their default is. I think that's kind of what Jeff Y. is trying to say...

I understand that if trusted, 100% built dyno sheets are submitted, the default multiplier is meaningless as the actual multiplier is known. There's even wiggle room around how close to 100% you need to get to have the default adjusted downward.

The issue is the evaluation of an unclassified car where there isn't such a history. The "what we know" path is going to be stock-HP and maybe a hodge-podge of data on non-IT builds.

It's questionable whether the car can make ITA weight, but viewing lighter cars as healthier for the class, it gets tossed into ITA. A couple of schmucks build the car and nope, it can't make weight. So, the car gets dropped to ITB. The dyno sheets submitted, if any, just don't convince the ITAC that they've got a full-tilt IT build to look at, so there is no reason to adjust the default multiplier.

Poof magic, that car suddenly makes 4% more power (1.3/1.25).

I don't know whether the current ITAC would do that, even though that is exactly what the process says must be done. I am almost certain that some future ITAC will do that exactly because that is the nature of formulaic systems.

[Knestis]

Let's be clear about this tho - I do NOT think the 30% default thing is a good idea. I don't even think it's an ACCEPTABLE idea.


I still see this as a minor problem. I don't think any popular competitive cars are going to end up at a default gain rate.

Then leave the default as the default - 25% - the way the actual Process developed by the ITAC is supposed to be, and run the "WTF do we know?" pathway on the cars that you all think warrant doing so.

If the hokey default isn't actually going to be used, why would the ITAC want to piss off your constituents and leave them distrustful of the committee and their practices? Talk about a BIG PICTURE issue.

K

[lateapex911]

If the hokey default isn't actually going to be used, why would the ITAC want to piss off your constituents and leave them distrustful of the committee and their practices? Talk about a BIG PICTURE issue.

K

Because, evidently*, the ITAC (well, those that have weighed in) feels it's better to piss off the constituents, rather than the CRB.

But I think that's backwards. The MEMBERS are the boss, and the BoD, and the CRB and the ITAC answer to them, ultimately. Of course, that line of thinking got my ass in a world of hurt with the CRB when I was on the CRB...

But I still think it's the way everybody on any of those committees needs to operate.

*I say that based on the multiple "Political capital" comments made by Jeff, Travis and Josh about this.

[Andy Bettencourt]

That's what bugs me about the 'creation' statement. We don't know for sure (or at least can't agree) what a 'model' is, and we really don't have a clue what 'type' means, so it's really difficult to understand what the overall intent was.

One thing is for sure - some time, some place, someone did (or wanted to do) something that drove the additional condition. If you look at the old proposed 1985 national IT ruleset, the update/backdate allowance has apparently always been there, but the 'creation' qualifier was added later.

In any case, my personal leaning would be to leave the former and strike the latter. It then becomes incumbent upon us to keep this in mind when making new classifications.

Welcome aboard Gary! Enjoy your time, it can be fun.

On the 'no clue what TYPE' means...we know what it means because it tells us right in there. Sedan, coupe, vert.

To me, it's additional language that was slapped in there to 'clarify' someones intorturtation, that so often actually adds grey area.

[gran racing]

Breaking it down beyond models: In addition to creating several additional variations and cars on different spec lines, it also creates additional challenges.

Many of the IT cars being driven are old and part sourcing is becoming difficult. This will make it even tougher for some to find replacement parts.
The process classification doesn't account for most items being discussed anyways, so who cares? If there are vehicles where the end classification would be impacted by more than just a few pounds, then break the cars out in different spec lines.
While this is technically not relevant since it's rules versus enforcement (although the ECU rule change happened exactly because of this), policing and attempting to determine legality will become even tougher.

[Chip42]

Breaking it down beyond models: In addition to creating several additional variations and cars on different spec lines, it also creates additional challenges.

Many of the IT cars being driven are old and part sourcing is becoming difficult. This will make it even tougher for some to find replacement parts.
The process classification doesn't account for most items being discussed anyways, so who cares? If there are vehicles where the end classification would be impacted by more than just a few pounds, then break the cars out in different spec lines.
While this is technically not relevant since it's rules versus enforcement (although the ECU rule change happened exactly because of this), policing and attempting to determine legality will become even tougher.

Dave,

I completely agree. the topic came up because others (here) have expressed firm disagreement. those weren't voices I tend to ignore, so I akse d aquestion. just so happens that my first ITAC con call had my letter on the agenda, so I was able to 'splain why I was writing it. we're gonna play with some things on the committee and put out somethign for member input. I appreciate the comments like yours because it helps frame the issue. thanks.

[JeffYoung]

And to be clear: I think the rules are not clear, and in one place allow the update/backdate Chip and Andy talk about, and then add that last sentence on "not creating a model" that is poorly defined.

My personal opinion is we should remove it and allow the update/backdating to go on, that is presently going on.

Like I said on committee, a strict interpretation of the rule makes illegal the induction system on pretty much every competitive ITS RX7 I'm aware of, and I don't want to do that. I need someone to beat, I mean race with.....:)


Dave,

I completely agree. the topic came up because others (here) have expressed firm disagreement. those weren't voices I tend to ignore, so I akse d aquestion. just so happens that my first ITAC con call had my letter on the agenda, so I was able to 'splain why I was writing it. we're gonna play with some things on the committee and put out somethign for member input. I appreciate the comments like yours because it helps frame the issue. thanks.

[JeffYoung]

No Jake that's about as incorrect of a statement as I've seen you make.

There are many issues we are working on in regards to IT. For me personally, the 1.3 default in ITB is a minor one. There are bigger picture items to address.

On top of that, how do you know "membership" is opposed to this? Basically, I see you, Andy, Kirk, Jeff and to a lesser extent Chip opposed? Trust me, I could count an equal number in support (and after a lot of thinking, color me mostly ambivalent but mildly opposed).

And let me ask you a big picture question:

Would you rather have NO Process at all, or a Process that had this 1.3 multiplier in ITB?


Because, evidently*, the ITAC (well, those that have weighed in) feels it's better to piss off the constituents, rather than the CRB.

But I think that's backwards. The MEMBERS are the boss, and the BoD, and the CRB and the ITAC answer to them, ultimately. Of course, that line of thinking got my ass in a world of hurt with the CRB when I was on the CRB...

But I still think it's the way everybody on any of those committees needs to operate.

*I say that based on the multiple "Political capital" comments made by Jeff, Travis and Josh about this.

[Chip42]

And let me ask you a big picture question:

Would you rather have NO Process at all, or a Process that had this 1.3 multiplier in ITB?

Process with better than no process.

[tnord]

Because, evidently*, the ITAC (well, those that have weighed in) feels it's better to piss off the constituents, rather than the CRB.

But I think that's backwards. The MEMBERS are the boss, and the BoD, and the CRB and the ITAC answer to them, ultimately. Of course, that line of thinking got my ass in a world of hurt with the CRB when I was on the CRB...

But I still think it's the way everybody on any of those committees needs to operate.

*I say that based on the multiple "Political capital" comments made by Jeff, Travis and Josh about this.

hey jake, piss off. :026:

i know you're bitter about the whole thing, but you're not on the committee anymore, so quit trying to run the show from your keyboard and acting like you know everything.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Like I said on committee, a strict interpretation of the rule makes illegal the induction system on pretty much every competitive ITS RX7 I'm aware of, and I don't want to do that. I need someone to beat, I mean race with.....:)

And we disagree on this strict interpretation...it says I can, so I do. You are basing your whole arguement on a term that nobody can agree on the meaning. Not a great foundation IMHO.

...and I bet most of the RX-7's you run against are 89-91's anyway...legal even by your read. :)

I DO agree with your planned course of action however. Strike the works nobody agrees what they mean and it's clear.

[JeffYoung]

I thought most folks used the earlier chassis cause it was ligther? With the 5 lugs and hood and GTUs 5th gear, and later induction system?

I'm really just playing devil's advocate here. I think your interpretation is the right one but I don't think it jives with the "don't create a model" language, which will drive my view of how we fix this.


And we disagree on this strict interpretation...it says I can, so I do. You are basing your whole arguement on a term that nobody can agree on the meaning. Not a great foundation IMHO.

...and I bet most of the RX-7's you run against are 89-91's anyway...legal even by your read. :)

I DO agree with your planned course of action however. Strike the works nobody agrees what they mean and it's clear.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with all of that.


Breaking it down beyond models: In addition to creating several additional variations and cars on different spec lines, it also creates additional challenges.

Many of the IT cars being driven are old and part sourcing is becoming difficult. This will make it even tougher for some to find replacement parts.
The process classification doesn't account for most items being discussed anyways, so who cares? If there are vehicles where the end classification would be impacted by more than just a few pounds, then break the cars out in different spec lines.
While this is technically not relevant since it's rules versus enforcement (although the ECU rule change happened exactly because of this), policing and attempting to determine legality will become even tougher.

[23racer]

hey jake, piss off. :026:

i know you're bitter about the whole thing, but you're not on the committee anymore, so quit trying to run the show from your keyboard and acting like you know everything.

As an outsider, watching this whole "splitting the hair" discussion about rules, I am a bit surprised at this response.

The whole discussion seems to be more about the responsiveness of the ITAC and the CRB to members concerns about rule inconsistencies. A number of members have brought valid questions to the fore about clarifying rules that are perceived to be unfair and without proper explanation from the "rulesmakers", people insert their own biased ideas as to why things happen.

A number of Commitee Members are doing a great job explaining what is going on and the thinking behind it, but this response serves no purpose and just fosters distrust. What the SCCA ITAC and CRB doesn't seem to realize is that the racers are actually customers and voting with their discretionary income on what and where they race. As discretionary income gets harder and harder to access, people are going to spend what they have with the groups that make them feel the most welcome.

This is supposed to be a fun hobby. Name calling and deriding people doesn't help.

Eric

[Knestis]

...And let me ask you a big picture question:

Would you rather have NO Process at all, or a Process that had this 1.3 multiplier in ITB?

So the proposition behind your question is that the CRB wouldn't have 'approved the Process' without the 1.3 multivalve multiplier for B cars. We've seen suggestions of that elsewhere.

Is this the case...?

K

[gran racing]

I think we should back off Jeff on this a bit. He's just one of the ITAC members and while this multivalve thing bothers me, he's not the one we need to convince.

Jeff, what (if anything) would be the most productive way to help eliminate this default in the process?

[JoshS]

As an outsider, watching this whole "splitting the hair" discussion about rules, I am a bit surprised at this response.

It's true that Travis could have used more tact, but I will say that Jake, your "call to arms" is really disruptive to what is generally a well-operating machine.


So the proposition behind your question is that the CRB wouldn't have 'approved the Process' without the 1.3 multivalve multiplier for B cars. We've seen suggestions of that elsewhere.

Is this the case...?

We don't know, as it never came down to that very specific question. There were a few areas of concern from the initial drafts and this issue was one of them. As I wanted to grease the skids, I agreed to add this language to the Ops Manual after a discussion with the ITAC and our CRB liaisons, and obviously, it ultimately jumped through the appropriate hoops in that form.

Although I don't really consider it to be a very sensible clause, it's not a lot different in effect than the "All I6s get a 30% default" as was the practice for a time there. Both of those defaults do make sense in many cases, so it's not really that crazy. Of course it's true that the MR2 and its siblings had to go uphill there for a little while, and theoretically some other multivalve car might have to follow in its footsteps, this seemed like the best way to actually ratify and publish an Ops Manual. Despite this hubbub, I'd make the same decision again.

[lateapex911]

No Jake that's about as incorrect of a statement as I've seen you make.

There are many issues we are working on in regards to IT. For me personally, the 1.3 default in ITB is a minor one. There are bigger picture items to address.

On top of that, how do you know "membership" is opposed to this? Basically, I see you, Andy, Kirk, Jeff and to a lesser extent Chip opposed? Trust me, I could count an equal number in support (and after a lot of thinking, color me mostly ambivalent but mildly opposed).

And let me ask you a big picture question:

Would you rather have NO Process at all, or a Process that had this 1.3 multiplier in ITB?

Jeff,1- I agree it's only one issue, and there are others. The 'create a model" for one. I agree with your conclusions on this one. I think that there are issues in ITB. One one hand you guys talk about what a mess ITB is, then on the other you say, (Playing devils advocate, I know) that changing the default 4V factor risks messing up the competitive balance of ITB. I know you speak in generalities for others, and you're not always expressing your own opinion, so contradictions like that do make sense to me, but...
2- I differ from you in that I am not looking at the actual here and now proven effect the factor may or may not have on the actual racing in ITB. Such conclusions are very difficult or impossible to draw at this point. I think it's folly to focus on those aspects when discussing this. I look at the bigger issue as it concerns the Process and the future. Hey, it might never actually prove to be a headache at all. But that doesn't make it something I want in the Process.
3- I think that if you made IT drivers read this thread, and vote, you'd find majority support for doing away with the 30% factor. And you know there are many guys out there who may not have commented, or that you haven't mentioned.

4- Such ultimatums miss the point. Sure, I'd rather have A Process than nothing. My point is that it's unfortunate that that is the decision that had to be made. Remember, this doesn't affect me in the least. I only care because I think it's a diservice to the PRocess and those affected by it.

5- I'm sorry if I'm getting on your case about it. Understand that, as far as any of us know, you're the 'conduit' into the ITAC, as far as ITACers who participate in dialog. Up to two days ago that is.
Glad to see the new additions. Two thumbs up from me on both of them.

[lateapex911]

It's true that Travis could have used more tact, but I will say that Jake, your "call to arms" is really disruptive to what is generally a well-operating machine.



We don't know, as it never came down to that very specific question. There were a few areas of concern from the initial drafts and this issue was one of them. As I wanted to grease the skids, I agreed to add this language to the Ops Manual after a discussion with the ITAC and our CRB liaisons, and obviously, it ultimately jumped through the appropriate hoops in that form.

Although I don't really consider it to be a very sensible clause, it's not a lot different in effect than the "All I6s get a 30% default" as was the practice for a time there. Both of those defaults do make sense in many cases, so it's not really that crazy. Of course it's true that the MR2 and its siblings had to go uphill there for a little while, and theoretically some other multivalve car might have to follow in its footsteps, this seemed like the best way to actually ratify and publish an Ops Manual. Despite this hubbub, I'd make the same decision again.

Josh, I hear, you, and I get it.
The 4V default DOES make sense in certain cases, you're right. But that's not a glowing tribute, either, LOL. As is makes NO sense in many cases and stands to do as much harm as it does good.

I'd differ on the "MR2 had to go uphill there for awhile". Do you really think that? I'd say the MR2s have had to go steeply uphill for as long as I can remember them being discussed (10 years) and they are STILL screwed.

Yes, I see it's a well oiled machine, I just think it's too bad this one chunck of sand can't be removed from the gearset* so that it will run like a top as far into the future as we can see.

Travis, I'm not bitter...but I can see that somebody in the works is acting in a way that's not in the best interest of the members...not you or Jeff or Josh, and it bugs me. Heck, I don't know if whoever it is 'gets' it. Or if it's become rationalized in their minds.

*(understood that it's a seldom used gearset)

[JeffYoung]

Josh did a good job answering this. We don't know. All we know is that this (the 1.3 multiplier in ITB) was very important to some folks. Josh put it in the Ops Manual, I looked it at and didn't have a huge issue with it, and we went from there.


So the proposition behind your question is that the CRB wouldn't have 'approved the Process' without the 1.3 multivalve multiplier for B cars. We've seen suggestions of that elsewhere.

Is this the case...?

K

[tnord]

Josh, I hear, you, and I get it.
The 4V default DOES make sense in certain cases, you're right. But that's not a glowing tribute, either, LOL. As is makes NO sense in many cases and stands to do as much harm as it does good.

Yes, I see it's a well oiled machine, I just think it's too bad this one chunck of sand can't be removed from the gearset* so that it will run like a top as far into the future as we can see.

Travis, I'm not bitter...but I can see that somebody in the works is acting in a way that's not in the best interest of the members...not you or Jeff or Josh, and it bugs me. Heck, I don't know if whoever it is 'gets' it. Or if it's become rationalized in their minds.

*(understood that it's a seldom used gearset)

get it through your head jake, what is "fact" to you is not necessarily so. i believe you were on the committee when you guys came up with the 30% I6 default no? how is that any more sensical than a 30% multi-valve default? they were both born out of the same limited experience fear, one from honda and one from BMW.

this temper tantrum is all about perception and hardly at all about reality. you just said yourself that it makes sense in some cases. it seems to me that, partially by coincidence alone, it works more than half of the time. chip of all people said in this very thread that more often than not the cars that are saddled with the 30% multiplier are able to achieve it. i can't remember if it was MV ITB cars that are not run through at 30%, or cars that are run through at 30% but aren't being raced that we went through on monday......but this MV default is absolutely NOT the biggest problem IT has.

find another flag to fly why don't you? the more the internet-betty's bitch about it, and the more letters we have to go through on the issue is just time taken away from the real problems. so who is it that really has the members best interest in mind here?

[Terry Hanushek]

Travis


hey jake, piss off. :026:

In your short tenure on the ITAC you have demonstrated an incredibly thin skin and an inability to deal with adverse comments. If conversations like this really bother you, perhaps you should find some are area to contribute, one that does not involve interfacing with competitors.

My $.02

Terry

[lateapex911]

get it through your head jake, what is "fact" to you is not necessarily so. i believe you were on the committee when you guys came up with the 30% I6 default no?
I was going to comment on josh's I6 example but didn't, for brevity. I was on the committee then and I actually went and dynoed Fred Fox's car with Bob Dowie over a weekend in mid state NY to try and get to the bottom of the E36s apparent overdog status. Bob was confident in the findings, I was on the fence, but it added to a mountain of data that said that E36 car made way more than it should. I still hand it to Bob for taking the time and going through the hassle to do that. Andy knows the later BMW cars better, so he can speak to that, but, MY take on the 30% I6 factor was that certain BMWs of a certain vintage needed to be watched like hawks, and seemed to be consistent overachievers. I entertained the notion that ALL I6s shared the same characteristics, but never bought in. I don't remember honestly if the factor was ever applied to another brand/vintage of car without specific model knowledge. In my mind that was not a 'default factor" that was used, except for those specific examples.


how is that any more sensical than a 30% multi-valve default? they were both born out of the same limited experience fear, one from honda and one from BMW.
It's not, and I drew my line at the application to BMWs. And the Honda cases that i remember were born from experts like Bob Clarke who had the knowledge about the specifics.


this temper tantrum is all about perception and hardly at all about reality. you just said yourself that it makes sense in some cases. [
So apply it in the known cases it makes sense. That's all I'm saying.


it seems to me that, partially by coincidence alone, it works more than half of the time.
Cool, glad coincidence is on our side....for now.



find another flag to fly why don't you? the more the internet-betty's bitch about it, and the more letters we have to go through on the issue is just time taken away from the real problems. so who is it that really has the members best interest in mind here?
Something something betty bitch Miata overdog..... is ..Is NOT...IS....is NOT......something something. ;)

[gran racing]

My take is that you mean well Travis and provide a meaningful contribution to the ITAC, but your communication skills are certainly lacking from an ITAC standpoint.I know, you don't care as previously stated.

[tnord]

tangent commentary for those missing the backstory because i'm tired of the accusations.....

the jake/andy/kirk regime got the hammer brought down on them by the CRB and were unable to "correct" cars that were never "processed" or done incorrectly so because of this exact type of arguement (some were asked to leave the ITAC, some left "on their own"). they were too stuck in their "process fundamentalism" to come to any sort of compromise with the CRB. i had conversations with the CRB via phone and in person about the issue, telling them i believed in the process on the whole and asking to not kill the whole thing. what they told me is that they agreed it was a good tool, but all they wanted was acknowledgement from the ITAC that it might not work 100% of the time. one CRB member said to me that he believed it was probably fine 95-99% of the time, but he wanted something to allow them to correct a car outside of the formula if another ITS BMW or Honda CRX showed up.

they wouldn't budge despite the fact that that tiny compromise would've allowed them to get back to work on making IT better, it was more important to them to maintain the purity of the religion/ideals/process than practical matters and end results. i tried myself to reach out to them, in private and in public, telling them that all they needed to do was work with the CRB in some miniscule amount to break the stalemate. i was lambasted for even suggesting anything that had the potential for "diddling." you want to accuse people of playing politics? refusing to work and compromise with the other side of the isle couldn't be any more political. sound like something else going on in DC right now?

so attack the current ITAC all you want for not circling the wagons and getting all fired up about this 30% MV ITB issue. i wasn't around when it was agreed to be put it in the manual, but for whatever reason it seems to hold true more often than not. i have spoken out against it, but i'm more concerned about practical matters than idealistic ones. the current ITAC has a great relationship with the CRB, and we're back to correcting listings and making a very competitive category better....even with the MV ITB default multiplier.

[tnord]

Travis

In your short tenure on the ITAC you have demonstrated an incredibly thin skin and an inability to deal with adverse comments. If conversations like this really bother you, perhaps you should find some are area to contribute, one that does not involve interfacing with competitors.

My $.02

Terry

no, they don't REALLY bother me. anyone that has known me since i've been involved with SCCA can tell you my demeanor has not changed in 8 years, and if you knew my mother, she'd tell you my demeanor has not changed in 30yrs.

if you don't think i should be on the ITAC, write a letter.

www.crb.com

[tnord]

My take is that you mean well Travis and provide a meaningful contribution to the ITAC, but your communication skills are certainly lacking from an ITAC standpoint.I know, you don't care as previously stated.

i will be perfectly happy going back to being off the grid, but then everyone will just bitch about no-communication.

i do not apologize for communicating in a direct manner.

[lateapex911]

Travis, what about the entire 'bring evidence to the contrary of the norm and confidence vote on it" concept? Isn't THAT not formulaic??

[JeffYoung]

Actually the six cylinder issue is an example of exactly why this 30% default in ITB is (a) not such an outlier as it is being protrayed and (b) not the huge problem like it is being portrayed.

When the ITR listing came out, there were a ton of cars that just didn't make sense from a "gain" perspective. A lot of them were inline and V-6 cars. The Nissan 300ZX got 30% with no real evidence of what it would make. The Toyota inline 6s did as well. All BMW inline sixes did too, regardless of things like the intake issue on the 2.8 motor.

Not surprisingly, none of this destroyed the category. It just created issues we had to work through, which is fine.

Frankly, I think most of the poo being slung at the 1.3 default -- and I think Josh's position on it sums up mine pretty succicintly -- is that it serves as a symbol of a "bad time" between the ITAC and the CRB, and is viewed as "someone pulling the strings."

It's not. Here is the 100% honest to God truth: some of the guys on the CRB actually believe that all or almost all multi valve cars in ITB will make more than 25%. They were concerned about another CRX situation in ITA, happening in ITB, before there was enough dyno data available (if that data ever became available)to correct that situation.

[tnord]

Travis, what about the entire 'bring evidence to the contrary of the norm and confidence vote on it" concept? Isn't THAT not formulaic??

"the norm" seems to be that MV ITB cars make 30%. :shrug:

[JeffYoung]

And they have an opportunity to prove that they don't. I agree that is not ideal, but it's not the end of the world.


"the norm" seems to be that MV ITB cars make 30%. :shrug:

[gran racing]

Travis, there's a big difference between being direct and being a dick as well as potraying a "I don't give a shit" attitude. But carry on. :rolleyes:

[Z3_GoCar]

When the ITR listing came out, there were a ton of cars that just didn't make sense from a "gain" perspective. A lot of them were inline and V-6 cars. The Nissan 300ZX got 30% with no real evidence of what it would make. The Toyota inline 6s did as well. All BMW inline sixes did too, regardless of things like the intake issue on the 2.8 motor.



When has the 2.8 been fixed?? It starts at the same HP as the M50 2.5 (189hp) and still weighs the same, so it must still be classed at a 30% default gain :shrug:

Not that I've got a horse in this race anymore, I've swapped for the motor that can have a chance at making more hp instead of being saddled with an intake manifold that saps power.

[JeffYoung]

I didn't say it had been. I just acknowledge it may be an issue. I'm not entirely convinced it can't make 30%, or that we've seen a full tilt build on one of these yet.


When has the 2.8 been fixed?? It starts at the same HP as the M50 2.5 (189hp) and still weighs the same, so it must still be classed at a 30% default gain :shrug:

Not that I've got a horse in this race anymore, I've swapped for the motor that can have a chance at making more hp instead of being saddled with an intake manifold that saps power.

[tnord]

When has the 2.8 been fixed?? It starts at the same HP as the M50 2.5 (189hp) and still weighs the same, so it must still be classed at a 30% default gain :shrug:

Not that I've got a horse in this race anymore, I've swapped for the motor that can have a chance at making more hp instead of being saddled with an intake manifold that saps power.

great example. there's a letter sitting on our agenda addressing this exact engine, but we haven't been able to get to it because we've been spending so much time on ITB.

i've reached out to builders to try and get some data, but have not been able to gather anything. if you have anything that could help us out, please send it to me.

[email protected]

[tnord]

Travis, there's a big difference between being direct and being a dick as well as potraying a "I don't give a shit" attitude. But carry on. :rolleyes:

in both my personal and professional experience, the only difference is the person interpreting the message.

[JeffYoung]

In my opinion, this has been a problem for several years. I would say 50% of total ITAC time and maybe as much as 70-80% of the time spent on specific cars is spent on ITB.


but we haven't been able to get to it because we've been spending so much time on ITB.

[jjjanos]

"the norm" seems to be that MV ITB cars make 30%. :shrug:

Please explain the physics of how a vinyl letter increases HP.

The norm isn't that multi-valved cars classified as ITB cars gain 30% in IT-trim.

The norm is that engines meeting all of these conditions will gain 30%:
1. Manufactured by [Insert A]
2. Built in the years [Insert B]
3. With stock HP between [Insert C1] and [Insert C2]
4. Displacement between [Insert D1] and [Insert D2]
5. These characteristics [Insert E].

It was just easier to slap a constant on the MV-issue than to fill in the blanks.

[jjjanos]

great example. there's a letter sitting on our agenda addressing this exact engine, but we haven't been able to get to it because we've been spending so much time on ITB.

i've reached out to builders to try and get some data, but have not been able to gather anything.

Which is it... you have the data and have been dealing with ITB or you don't have the data, so it doesn't matter that you've been dealing with ITB?


In my opinion, this has been a problem for several years. I would say 50% of total ITAC time and maybe as much as 70-80% of the time spent on specific cars is spent on ITB.

Through June, 18% of the category are ITB cars, which would suggest disproportionate time on ITB, but.... since it has been acknowledged that the HP multiplier is inconsistent with the majority of cars already classified in ITB (and that, presumably isn't the case for ITR/S/A), I would think that the majority of misclassified cars are in B. Thus shouldn't ITB and ITC be receiving the lion's share of attention to bring those older cars into line with the more recent additions?

If any of the 18.84 ITC cars were being run and were as well-developed as the newer ITB cars, I imagine the ITAC would be spending another 30% on ITC...

[JeffYoung]

No worries. 99% of the discussion is polite and I appreciate that.

Your last point is a tough one. The 1.3 is under discussion, but it is going to face a lot of opposition to change it and I continue to think making the effort just is not worth it. There are a lot more issues out there we need to be addressing, and this thing will chew up a ton of time.

If I had a groundswell of member opposition to it, then that may change things. But (and no offense) a few guys on this board doesn't constitute a consensus, a majority, or anything more than, well, just a few guys on this board.

I think the ITAC guys who do post here all think its hard to explain, but just don't see it has a huge problem.

Not really an answer so much as a rambling explanation on where we are....sorry if that wasn't much help.


I think we should back off Jeff on this a bit. He's just one of the ITAC members and while this multivalve thing bothers me, he's not the one we need to convince.

Jeff, what (if anything) would be the most productive way to help eliminate this default in the process?

[Andy Bettencourt]

tangent commentary for those missing the backstory because i'm tired of the accusations.....

the jake/andy/kirk regime got the hammer brought down on them by the CRB and were unable to "correct" cars that were never "processed" or done incorrectly so because of this exact type of arguement (some were asked to leave the ITAC, some left "on their own"). they were too stuck in their "process fundamentalism" to come to any sort of compromise with the CRB. i had conversations with the CRB via phone and in person about the issue, telling them i believed in the process on the whole and asking to not kill the whole thing. what they told me is that they agreed it was a good tool, but all they wanted was acknowledgement from the ITAC that it might not work 100% of the time. one CRB member said to me that he believed it was probably fine 95-99% of the time, but he wanted something to allow them to correct a car outside of the formula if another ITS BMW or Honda CRX showed up.

Holy crap this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of that CRB member of not only the position of the then ITAC and/or the Process and how it worked, works or could work. Unreal. The perception of Travis's version of Deap Throat is 100% opposite of reality. Sad really.

In the end, I suppose I have to take responsibility for that as I was Chairman but I have to say the CRB liaisons were asleep at the wheel and that pisses me off.

[Andy Bettencourt]

in both my personal and professional experience, the only difference is the person interpreting the message.

LMAO. Stick to letting Jeff field the questions.

[JeffYoung]

Just an observation for all of us (myself included).

The way we discuss the IT world on the internet -- the rules, the competition, the personalities -- makes us look like in many cases a bunch of petty jerks that no one would want to race with, with a crappy rule set, and a "governing" body with mysterious and evil motives.

When in practice, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

We all know that IT racing is some of the best out there, that the folks we meet and talk to and race with in the paddock are the best around, and the IT ruleset and classification process is stable and works very well.

We are shooting ourselves (me included) in the foot with these types of discussions.

I don't hesitate to say that if it was this kind of dialogue I stumbled across back in 2001 when I was rooting around for a place to race, rather than the extremely helfpul and friendly place this was back then, I'd probably be racing something else in another class.

[quadzjr]

I am sick of this ongoing debate about the MV 30% gain in ITB. It is like a political forum nobody is changing their mind and everyone is bantering back and forth.

Travis, in years past you have been somehow seemingly well knowing of how the CRB felt on issues even before you were on the ITAC and you were accused of being in the center of some evil backroom deal shenanigans. I choose to ignore as I do not know whom was honest or speaking out of emotion. During the time of the mass exodus you were agreeing with what the CRB liaison was saying. Which is fine, doesn't both me a bit. However, when I rose a stink on here or the other site about the MR2, I believe it was you that said I choose the wrong car (could be wrong, and do not feel like looking it up.. it was either you or PK.) When that was said, it was the first time I felt that I was wasting my time on the car as I had no hope of truly communicating what I know to what others know “they know”. You are right though, I did pick the wrong car, and if it wasn't for the stupid amount of money I have invested into this car thinking that I could prove it was not classed right as it was my impression that the ITAC needed information. I was partially naive in thinking that and didn't know the history of the MR2 (4AGE) battles in thinking I could gather data and things would be fixed. I could of spent 1/2 the money on a honda or VW, and been alot more competitive in ITB. I would of sold the long ago, but I wouldn't get near a 1/3 of what I invested as who would want a car that has no chance of winning? ( I understand this is not a problem of the ITAC, only myself, but I was under the belief that my efforts would pay off, so I continued…)

I did chuckle a bit about the miata overdog comment. Though you seemed to dislike having the conversations back then you discussed and defended it to length, on atleast two different forums. So please do not get upset if others want you to do the same that has an affect on them. I have read what you have put on sites for others to read and you are smart and know how to drive a car. I do not think you ignorant or even stubborn, we are just on other sides of the fence.

[Knestis]

Holy crap this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of that CRB member of not only the position of the then ITAC and/or the Process and how it worked, works or could work. Unreal. The perception of Travis's version of Deap Throat is 100% opposite of reality. Sad really.

In the end, I suppose I have to take responsibility for that as I was Chairman but I have to say the CRB liaisons were asleep at the wheel and that pisses me off.

THANK YOU, Andy, for saving me a lot of typing time. We tried to explain the difference between the Process and a "spreadsheet" to "that CRB member," and he was frankly uninterested in listening.

We developed a comprehensive PROCESS - not a formula - for determining race weights of all IT cars. We forced it to be repeatable, transparent, and documented. We wanted to prevent precisely the kind of random, unclear, unaccountable crapola that is represented by the "1.3 default" silliness.

If it turns out that every multivalve car that gets listed in B happens to need a 1.5 multiplier, the Process will let that happen.

There WAS a 1.3 "default" for inline sixes but that went away when we improved the Process to allow it to deal with 100% - not 95-99%, Travis - of our cars.

What the CRB wanted was to pick numbers that they simply BELIEVED were correct - like the one that has been dumped on the Toyotas - without all of those pesky steps, documentation, or accountability imposed by the Process.

I guess I should be glad that with just a couple of glaring exceptions, the mostly-intact and now documented (thank you Josh, et al.) process should be allowed to work but dammit guys, the next time the CRB preempts the system on this stuff, would you PLEASE grow some stones and just ask them nicely to please follow good governance practices?

K

[Knestis]

Just an observation for all of us (myself included).

The way we discuss the IT world on the internet -- the rules, the competition, the personalities -- makes us look like in many cases a bunch of petty jerks that no one would want to race with, with a crappy rule set, and a "governing" body with mysterious and evil motives.

When in practice, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

We all know that IT racing is some of the best out there, that the folks we meet and talk to and race with in the paddock are the best around, and the IT ruleset and classification process is stable and works very well.

We are shooting ourselves (me included) in the foot with these types of discussions.

I don't hesitate to say that if it was this kind of dialogue I stumbled across back in 2001 when I was rooting around for a place to race, rather than the extremely helfpul and friendly place this was back then, I'd probably be racing something else in another class.

...or the ITAC could fix the problem that so many seem to think is a stupid little thing.

K

[JeffYoung]

Sorry Kirk. You're a friend, but you've lost me. No room for other viewpoints or compromise with you. You can't run a committee that way, and you can't expect everyone to agree with you all of the time.

You got 99% of what you (we) wanted in the Ops Manual and you are hung up on the one thing you didn't get. That's fine, and you are entitled to that belief, but I personally think it is incredibly naive -- especially for one of your intelligence and knowledge of how group dynamics work -- to expect it to have gone entirely "our" way.

And you miss the point. While I think it is a minor issue, it is a very important one to others on the CRB (and other members). No one on the committee can just snap their fingers and get this changed.



...or the ITAC could fix the problem that so many seem to think is a stupid little thing.

K

[Knestis]

But it's like Andy kind of pointed out, Jeff - that someone thinks the system NEEDS a 1.3 we-don't-have-to-think-about-it default for one kind of power plant is emblematic that they JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE PROCESS WORKS. I guess why I'm most disturbed about this whole thing is that I had allowed myself to be optimistic about where we ended up - post my departure - but now I see a huge crack in the structure.

And I apologize for being terse. Here's how "fix" goes:

1. Discuss the question within the ITAC. End the discussion the minute someone makes the same point twice, as that's an indication that you've reached saturation.

2. Call for a vote. Vote. Record who votes how.

3. If a majority of ITAC members support the status quo, you're done. You can revisit the issue when feelings change or new information comes to light. YOU HAVE DONE YOUR JOB.

4. On the other hand, if you have a sufficient majority to do so, make an official recommendation through your liaison of your finding. I'd picture something like, "the 1.3 default is inconsistent with the principles that drive the Process, and the ITAC is confident that striking that clause from the ops manual still leaves you fully equipped to handle ANY case that might come along." But as Travis insists on pointing out, I quit and I'm bitter.

5. Let the CRB do its job, deciding whether or not to act on your recommendation.

I utterly fail to see why this is so difficult, how what I propose is somehow issuing ultimatums or "going to war," and what you have to lose from it. By NOT following some sensible, standard practices in committee work and governance, you (collectively) leave the members with secret bullshit stories circulating and room to quite reasonably presume that we've got shenanigans again.

If the operating principles between the ad hocs and the CRB are so dysfunctional - honestly, my worst fear - that this kind of approach will throw them into a tizzy, then we have MUCH bigger issues at hand. But even if that's not the case, this is still not just about ITB cars.

K

[tnord]

Travis, in years past you have been somehow seemingly well knowing of how the CRB felt on issues even before you were on the ITAC and you were accused of being in the center of some evil backroom deal shenanigans. I choose to ignore as I do not know whom was honest or speaking out of emotion. During the time of the mass exodus you were agreeing with what the CRB liaison was saying. Which is fine, doesn't both me a bit. However, when I rose a stink on here or the other site about the MR2, I believe it was you that said I choose the wrong car (could be wrong, and do not feel like looking it up.. it was either you or PK.) When that was said, it was the first time I felt that I was wasting my time on the car as I had no hope of truly communicating what I know to what others know “they know”. You are right though, I did pick the wrong car, and if it wasn't for the stupid amount of money I have invested into this car thinking that I could prove it was not classed right as it was my impression that the ITAC needed information. I was partially naive in thinking that and didn't know the history of the MR2 (4AGE) battles in thinking I could gather data and things would be fixed. I could of spent 1/2 the money on a honda or VW, and been alot more competitive in ITB. I would of sold the long ago, but I wouldn't get near a 1/3 of what I invested as who would want a car that has no chance of winning? ( I understand this is not a problem of the ITAC, only myself, but I was under the belief that my efforts would pay off, so I continued…)

I did chuckle a bit about the miata overdog comment. Though you seemed to dislike having the conversations back then you discussed and defended it to length, on atleast two different forums. So please do not get upset if others want you to do the same that has an affect on them. I have read what you have put on sites for others to read and you are smart and know how to drive a car. I do not think you ignorant or even stubborn, we are just on other sides of the fence.

you're right, i absolutely did say that i had zero issue with saying the process may not work 100% of the time....and i still agree. have i used anything but since january? no, and i don't think i will....but that whole always/never thing is dangerous. i don't recall saying you chose the wrong car, but if you built that car post realignment and after the move to B then yeah, i'd agree....you did build the wrong car. does that mean i think it should permanently be saddled at 30% gain? no it doesn't.....but i didn't get to vote on that issue. that was the month before me.

the 30% MV ITB default and the MR2 need to be separated, because they are not the same issue, at least to me they aren't. i'm not going to get into the whole miata debacle again.....but that was born out greg and his hand puppet jeremy using bad data from sportscar, theoretical/salesman numbers from kessler, and the completely false public perception that you can just start adding on power gains from IT modifications on top of a SM dyno curve.

[tnord]

Holy crap this demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of that CRB member of not only the position of the then ITAC and/or the Process and how it worked, works or could work. Unreal. The perception of Travis's version of Deap Throat is 100% opposite of reality. Sad really.

In the end, I suppose I have to take responsibility for that as I was Chairman but I have to say the CRB liaisons were asleep at the wheel and that pisses me off.

that's fine, but i tried to tell you guys exactly what was going on with the CRB, and for whatever reason you guys were unable to work it out.

i remember being attacked by "all of you" for not disclosing the names of the CRB members (that's right, plural) who had that view, and as steve points out, you guys accused me of being part of the problem when i was trying to help you out.

this whole big pile of steaming poo feels about the same to me.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Not for nothin' Travis but you tend to be like a couple other squeaky wheels on this board. Happy to chime out with an 'I told you so' but never willing to help when there is help needed....before it's too late.

I would have loved the names of those CRB members who were either getting bad info from liaisons (more likely no info at all) or just didn't care to really listen, so I could have called them personally and really walked them through the years of work the ITAC did instead of going in cold to a group of people who were obviously uniformed and disinterested in the current direction of IT.

But nope. It was better to be all cloak and dagger so it fell apart. Good stuff.

[Andy Bettencourt]

There is no use bitching about the ITB stuff anymore. The ITAC is working on a class that has so many issues that it will take ( and has taken) a mega ton of time. It's a project that nobody here would want to undertake. It looks like the CRB is letting the ITAC revamp and it will really require work from a lot of angles. It's the last frontier to a better IT IMHO.

[tnord]

Not for nothin' Travis but you tend to be like a couple other squeaky wheels on this board. Happy to chime out with an 'I told you so' but never willing to help when there is help needed....before it's too late.

I would have loved the names of those CRB members who were either getting bad info from liaisons (more likely no info at all) or just didn't care to really listen, so I could have called them personally and really walked them through the years of work the ITAC did instead of going in cold to a group of people who were obviously uniformed and disinterested in the current direction of IT.

But nope. It was better to be all cloak and dagger so it fell apart. Good stuff.

you mean like i was no help when i wasn't even on the ITAC and i was out there backing up the process to the CRB?

you mean like i was no help when i submitted my resume 18mos ago right in the middle of the shit storm with the CRB because i obviously had a better relationship with some of them than you guys did but i still believed in the process on the whole and could keep it moving forward?

i keep my word. if i'm told something in confidence by coworkers, friends, other SCCA members, or whoever....it stays with me. call it cloak and dagger, call it whatever you want. no amount of public manuevering by you or anyone else will get me to give up my integrity, it's worth far more than this silly SCCA nonsense. the people that know me, trust me. i tried to help you guys without breaking that trust, you just didn't want to be helped, or didn't believe what i said had any credibility, and that's just fine by me.

your comments are pretty bold andy, especially considering some past conversations we've had that i have not forgotten about.

PS - that's a nice little spin you put on it at the end, like it was me who caused the whole ITAC/CRB fallout because i wouldn't give up the names. that's rich.

[StephenB]

this temper tantrum is all about perception and hardly at all about reality.

Perception IS Reality.

Until a particular person can figure that out they have 0% accountability for the actions they make. Take some time and REFLECT on your personal actions, understand the perceptions, and then take accountability for your personal results... the reality is that the perception of others are the results you should hold yourself accountable for, not what you perceive the actual results are.

Stephen

[Andy Bettencourt]

i keep my word. if i'm told something in confidence by coworkers, friends, other SCCA members, or whoever....it stays with me.

nobody is questioning your integrity here. What I am saying is that if you had info that could have help us clear up some serious misconceptions, it would have been great to know who to target with proper information. Additionally, why would any of that stuff be in confidence? You believed in the Process, they didn't get it, hook us up so we can fix it?

Either way, it doesn't matter. You are on the inside now and can use your local relationships on a national level.

[JeffYoung]

The part of Travis' post that I agree with is that we (myself included) became ideologues about the Process, and unwilling to bend or change or accept any criticism of it outside of our group. What we perceived as CRB "meddling" could, I think somewhat fairly, be seen on their side as just asking questions, or offering suggestions/advice (and ultimately telling us what they would and wouldn't accept).

I can only speak for me and my perceptions, but I was very guilty of this. If it came out of my mouth, or Kirk/Andy/Jake/Josh's, I believed it like Gospel. But if it came from a CRB guy or someone who I didn't think had bought into the Process completely, I saw it as having some sort of bad motive.

That's not to say there wasn't fault on the CRB side and there certainly was. Most importantly, it is sad to me that an environment was create that caused Kirk, Andy and Jake to resign or feel like they had to resign. I think that was unnecessary.

I came very close to resigning, or being asked to resign (and in hindsight the CRB was probably right about that, posting what others were saying on committee is not a good idea). But I am very glad I did not as this 1.3 issue aside things are working very well right now.

I'm beating a dead horse, but I do just wish that Kirk, Andy and Jake could see things from inside just once more because the atmosphere has changed dramatically and the direction is very positive.

[tnord]

it's unbelieveable that you're trying to put even a single ounce of responsibility on me for the fall out.

[JLawton]

Travis,

You've stated in the past that you may be direct and people may not like it, but you have the best interests of IT when working on the ITAC. The problem is that whatever message you try to communicate gets lost due to the presentation.

Remember, the ITAC represents the IT community......... of which we are all part of on this form. Your attitude does not represent this community well. You're thin skinned and insecure despite your beating your chest and claiming otherwise. Being a dick under the guise of being direct is a bunch of BS. Grow up and stop the tantrums.

And yes, I will be writing my letter to the CRB voicing my displeasure with your attitude.......

[JeffYoung]

Travis does excellent work on the committee. Probably does more work "out of committee" than anyone. I'd ask you guys to remember that when posting here or writing to the CRB.

[tnord]

i'm the one throwing tantrums? this thread just keeps getting better.

i guess i really shouldn't expect anything else from this group.

[JLawton]

i guess i really shouldn't expect anything else from this group.

Thank you for another fine example of your maturity..........


Jeff, as i said in my previous post. What ever good work Travis does for the ITAC gets lost due to his attitude. He needs to tone it down.

[gran racing]

What ever good work Travis does for the ITAC gets lost due to his attitude.

Exactly. I don't doubt you contribute to the ITAC Travis but that message is certainly often lost to people who read you posts which is too bad. I know, it's us not you. :rolleyes:

[TStiles]

I really wish you guys would take this conversation offline.

If I were on the fence about :

- SCCA or NASA
- Race or keep doing DE's
- IT or something else
- Ect.

I might look at this process and conclude that the SCCA CRB / ITAC is just like congress.

I haven't been around IT for long , but I've been SCCA club racing since 1987. I think I'm pretty safe saying that there are better ways to grow club racing.

[JeffYoung]

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING.

Who reading this thread would want to build an IT car?


I really wish you guys would take this conversation offline.

If I were on the fence about :

- SCCA or NASA
- Race or keep doing DE's
- IT or something else
- Ect.

I might look at this process and conclude that the SCCA CRB / ITAC is just like congress.

I haven't been around IT for long , but I've been SCCA club racing since 1987. I think I'm pretty safe saying that there are better ways to grow club racing.

[Knestis]

that's fine, but i tried to tell you guys exactly what was going on with the CRB, and for whatever reason you guys were unable to work it out.

i remember being attacked by "all of you" for not disclosing the names of the CRB members (that's right, plural) who had that view, and as steve points out, you guys accused me of being part of the problem when i was trying to help you out. ...

That's because the back-channel discussion and not disclosing names WAS THE PROBLEM.

It was circumventing and subverting the official lines of communication that should have gone from the ITAC, through our liaison, to the ENTIRE CRB. Instead, the liaison was running our work through his own filter before passing it to just a few members of the CRB, who made all of their decisions - or decided to NOT make decisions - based on their misconceptions, up to and including the fundamentals of how the Process that they were critical of even worked...!

To be clear about my issue: This is not a 1.3 multiplier problem. It is not a MR2 problem. It isn't even an IT problem. The multi-valve default in B is just the most recent manifestation of the real issue.

But you know what? Y'all got it under control. If Jeff says it's going in a good direction, I trust him. Just recognize that you will get painted with the brush the CRB gives the members.

Done.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

it's unbelieveable that you're trying to put even a single ounce of responsibility on me for the fall out.

Look at it this way, you had info that could have made life much better for the then ITAC, and you kept it to yourself. Good for you that you kept your word to keep that info to yourself. Shame on whomever thought it was a good idea to keep the names silent. If someone didn't 'get it', it would have been awesome to know who it was so we could have reached out and worked harder.

In the end, I place half the blame on me for not knowing the CRB was clueless and the other half on the people who were supposed to be out connection to the group. Some of those people who helped shape the orignial direction of the Process.

And I also trust Jeff in telling us that the ITAC is in a great spot.

[JeffYoung]

I really think this is one of those situations where a bunch of good folks just got in a pickle. For years while you were on the committee and before, I'm told the ITAC was viewed as one of the best committees out there. I honestly think that contributed to the problem because it gave you/us a lot of autonomy and also the CRB (I'm guessing) just sort of had us on autopilot.

I am positive Bob was keeping the CRb aware of what we were doing, but it just may not have been possible to explain in detail to them how revolutionary the Process is for IT.

So Andy got asked to explain it, and I think some of the details were a shock to the CRB. Not because Andy could have explained it better, or because Bob could have, but just because no one anticipated how much of a change the Process would be, the actual implications of it, etc.

People got crosswise as a result. I will tell you that your resignation, and Andy's and Jake's shook things up and made us all look at how we had been communicating and try to do better.

That was a bad, hard time, and honestly Jake got the worst of it after you guys left. Felt the worst for him really.

But -- and it sucks it had to be "fixed" this way -- your sacrifice forced us to communicate with each other better. I have thanked you and continue to thank you for that.


That's because the back-channel discussion and not disclosing names WAS THE PROBLEM.

It was circumventing and subverting the official lines of communication that should have gone from the ITAC, through our liaison, to the ENTIRE CRB. Instead, the liaison was running our work through his own filter before passing it to just a few members of the CRB, who made all of their decisions - or decided to NOT make decisions - based on their misconceptions, up to and including the fundamentals of how the Process that they were critical of even worked...!

To be clear about my issue: This is not a 1.3 multiplier problem. It is not a MR2 problem. It isn't even an IT problem. The multi-valve default in B is just the most recent manifestation of the real issue.

But you know what? Y'all got it under control. If Jeff says it's going in a good direction, I trust him. Just recognize that you will get painted with the brush the CRB gives the members.

Done.

K

[tnord]

That's because the back-channel discussion and not disclosing names WAS THE PROBLEM.

It was circumventing and subverting the official lines of communication that should have gone from the ITAC, through our liaison, to the ENTIRE CRB.

please....tell me more about how i'm the one playing politics.

you're seriously suggesting putting a gag-order on CRB to regular member communication without the presence of the stonecutters/ITAC?

[jjjanos]

you're seriously suggesting putting a gag-order on CRB to regular member communication without the presence of the stonecutters/ITAC?

I believe that the point is that if a member of the CRB is having issues with an AC, that member should go to the AC as opposed to some nitwit.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So Andy got asked to explain it, and I think some of the details were a shock to the CRB. Not because Andy could have explained it better, or because Bob could have, but just because no one anticipated how much of a change the Process would be, the actual implications of it, etc.



I agree with most of what Jeff says but I will comment on the above quote.

The Process had been in place for YEARS prior to me getting on that call. There were CRB members that had ZERO idea that there was an actual classing methodology. Could I have explained it better? You bet! But in order to do that, I would have needed to know my audience better....and that is where some of the blame I take resides. I SHOULD have known that over half of the CRB was coming in cold and could have been better prepared to lay a foundation instead of detailing clarifications and then backtracking as I 'read' the audience.

I believe 100% that if the CRB was as up to speed as they should have been, the call would have been just as anticipated, a quick refresher, then details on how we had written the ins-and outs of the entire Process down, how to manuever through the minutia and then spit out repeatable and defendable results, including what could be done if an overdog were to appear.

It was desinged to show the CRB that the Process was shennanigan-proof in an effort to take a real shot at rebuilding ITB using the same foundation.

As Jeff pointed out, it was a pickle. We had worked hard and for some reason (to this day I am not sure why) Bob Dowie really started focusing classification discussions and approvals based on things like 'similar architechture'. Stuff we had never considered before given the limitations of the IT ruleset. The rest is history.

I am very proud of the work I did on that committee and with the people I did it with. I had just run my course and Josh picked up the ball where it was getting knocked out of my hands.

[lateapex911]

My thinking is that this is a club of guys who race cars. We aren't trying to make a profit, steal some other companies thunder by getting our super secret product to market first, or surprise somebody in a courtroom with killer evidence.

For a second, I'm putting on my ITAC hat again:
We who serve on committees, need to be open, transparent and remember that the members are the bosses. I make a point to keep my private channel discussions to a minimum. If I want to say something, think something, then all the members have a right to know what it is.
I screwed up on the MR2 originally doing bad math when I was trying to do three things a con call in a hotel room in Watkins Glen, and nobody ushered a peep. My bad on that, and i admitted it years ago. We all make mistakes, but if the members wanted to write in, and say "Fire Jake for bad math", that's their absolute right. And if the CRB did fire me for that mistake, I'd have been surprised, but hey, that's their right.

Again, we are working for the members.
That Travis spoke to somebody and honored the agreement to keep his name quiet is disturbing not because Travis honored the agreement, but because here's this guy, essentially talking about things that matter to the membership, yet he's too embarrassed/scared to let his name be assigned to that.
WRONG. Hey, if he's ratting on some other CRB guys, well, the other CRB guys might not like it, but tough shit...there should be nothing to rat out in the first place!
Whenever that back room secret crap goes on, often it's because somebody is protecting their own ass, in some way. And if that's not the case, it sure looks like it, and that is as much of a problem as the former aspect.

It's a freaking car club guys...if you're on a committee, do your job. Be ON the con calls. (I was incensed by the attendance records we had going for awhile there) If you're doing your best but you haven't covered all the bases, fine, but don't be all secretive and try to cover it up.

Simple fact is that Andy went on a con call to explain the Process, and members of his audience didn't know that the Process existed, after it was being used, for years.
Having that info going in, Andy would have made the appropriate calls to get them up to speed.

Travis, your account of the period is your account, but you weren't on the con calls, you don't know what was said.
I was shocked and the CRB position changed nearly 180 degrees month to month. At one point, the chairman stated: "You'll never convince me that a Process based on stock hp is a good idea", yet he'd been fine with it for five years. And he'd bent over backwards helping the committee get numbers on cars, and connecting us with other adhocs for data, etc etc.

Having a clue that was going to come up would have been helpful.

[Bill Miller]

I see Travis continues to win friends and influence people. Well done.