September 2012 Fastrack

[pfrichardson]

...are posted: http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[Greg Amy]

Full Fastrack:
http://www.scca.com/assets/12-fastrack-sept.pdf

Master Tech Bulletin:
http://www.scca.com/assets/2012MasterTechBulletin-UpdatedThroughSeptemberFastrack.pdf

Current GCR:
http://www.scca.com/assets/2012GCR-updatedSeptember.pdf

[CRallo]

Which 85 Stang exceeds the performance levels of ITR?

[Flyinglizard]

The Mustang fits fine .
What about the ITB Rocco 2 with 180#s out?? Can that be right??
All I have to do is remove the cam and that car is back in class.

[shwah]

The Mustang fits fine .
What about the ITB Rocco 2 with 180#s out?? Can that be right??
All I have to do is remove the cam and that car is back in class.

Why should it weigh any more than the A1 GTI? Same motor, trans, brakes, suspension, but much higher polar moment of inertia with the park bench bumpers.

That said, I think it is a great car for B, as is the A1 GTI, but no one has seriously run one after the weight was corrected.

[tom91ita]

...What about the ITB Rocco 2 with 180#s out?? Can that be right??

looks like he asked for 181 #'s to be removed and it dropped 50 #'s



ITB
1. #4729 (Brooke Fairbanks) Reduce the weight of the 83-88 VW Scirocco II 8V by 181 lbs. In ITB, Volkswagen Scirocco II 8V (83-88), change weight as follows: from 2130 to 2080

[Chip42]

Which 85 Stang exceeds the performance levels of ITR?

the one with the 210hp V8 with 4bbl carb sold only in 1985.

[CRallo]

that doesn't sound like too much for R to me... what am I missing?

[ShelbyRacer]

Interesting that the CRB is "keeping my resume on file", yet I believe I've been added to the ITAC...

[erlrich]

Interesting that the CRB is "keeping my resume on file", yet I believe I've been added to the ITAC...

They have plans for you :D

[Chip42]

Interesting that the CRB is "keeping my resume on file", yet I believe I've been added to the ITAC...

we accept you one of us, one of us...

Seriously though, I look forward to working with you. :023:

[Chip42]

that doesn't sound like too much for R to me... what am I missing?

I'm not a ford guy, nor american muscle guy in general, but those on the committee who are presented arguments that the specific mix of components on the 85GT, combined with IT rules, shakes out beyond the intended ITR performance envelope. we therefore voted to not allow it on those grounds. given the EFI cars ARE classified, I think it works out as a wash.

[Hoof Hearted]

looks like he asked for 181 #'s to be removed and it dropped 50 #'s

My letter was submitted in April, 2011 and was as follows:
Letter #4729
Title: Reduce the weight of the 83-88 VW Scirocco II 8V by 181 lbs.
Request: The 1983-88 US version VW Scirocco II 8 valve 1.8L "JH" motor produced 90hp from the factory.
Scources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Scirocco
http://www.scirocco.org/53b/history.html

Based on the ITAC Operations Manual, version 0.9, July 2010, this model vehicle should have a minimum racing weight with driver of 1949 pounds (using an assumed 30% gain above stock in IT trim). The calculation is as follows: 90*1.30*17*.98 = 1,949.22 rounded to 1949 lbs., down 181 lbs. from the current 2,130 lbs. Please consider this change. Thank you, Brooke Fairbanks SCCA member # 418214

I used a 30% gain versus the 25% hp gain due to the "drink straw" size exhaust manifold... ...the new weight now matches the 83-84 Rabbit GTI, but that's not what I requested.

[Flyinglizard]

After running the Rabbit and the Rocco with the same powerplant,, the Rabbit should get 50#, as it always has.
The Rocc is 6in shorter, much better glass angle. The vertical CG must be 5-6 in lower also. But Ihave never measured it.
The bumpers are the chunk, but the car still can turn in pretty well ,What the Rabbit makes up at turn in, the Rocc makes from middle to the end of the straight. IMHO/.
FWIW when I started running the Rocc in HP, the first thing I did was drop the front bumper off. MM

[shwah]

No way the vertical cg is that much lower, though the center of aerodynamic pressure is.

I don't think the SII is any shorter than a Rabbit with the required US bumpers installed.

There are mild aero differences, which are not allegedly considered in IT classing. There are also mild weight distribution differences, also not considered in IT classing, that I think effectively offset that change.

[Flyinglizard]

I dont have any numbers for the vertical CG. You're right, maybe 2 inlower.
By shorter, I meant lower in altitude. The overall length is a trifle longer for the Rock, maybe.. Idont have any complete Rabbits here.
The cars run real close with a 50# spread,IMHO.
But , Iwill take the Rock evreytime @ 50#.
The Rabbit really needs to be welded, the Rock can get by with a quaife. That leads me to think that the front roll center ,and overall CG is a good bit lower. Just cuz it keeps the inside tire down better. YMMV .

[Chip42]

The. Sciroco II and rabbit should be classes the same per it rules. Barring suspension design or drivetrain configuration differences, etc.. any 2 cars with the same engine should be the same weight when in the same class in IT.

What the letter asked for was a reprocess, and what the crb gave was a match to the golf. That was the crb's decision, and its resonably fair if not "the process". At least the roc isn't handicapped to the gti any more.

[Flyinglizard]

I now race the Rock . I am happy with 50# over the Rabbit.
The car is simply 50# faster over 3rd gear. Do anything you want. As I am out of IT and into Prod.
The rules and weights have never made much sense in the past. Now that the A 1 car are down to a fair weight, they could be pretty good. Too bad it took so long, we would still be in IT.

The Mk 3 needs another 100# if you do the simple math of # per CC, But that wont happen if heavy hitters are running the cars.IMHO.

[Bill Miller]

looks like he asked for 181 #'s to be removed and it dropped 50 #'s


My letter was submitted in April, 2011 and was as follows:
Letter #4729
Title: Reduce the weight of the 83-88 VW Scirocco II 8V by 181 lbs.
Request: The 1983-88 US version VW Scirocco II 8 valve 1.8L "JH" motor produced 90hp from the factory.
Scources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Scirocco
http://www.scirocco.org/53b/history.html

Based on the ITAC Operations Manual, version 0.9, July 2010, this model vehicle should have a minimum racing weight with driver of 1949 pounds (using an assumed 30% gain above stock in IT trim). The calculation is as follows: 90*1.30*17*.98 = 1,949.22 rounded to 1949 lbs., down 181 lbs. from the current 2,130 lbs. Please consider this change. Thank you, Brooke Fairbanks SCCA member # 418214

I used a 30% gain versus the 25% hp gain due to the "drink straw" size exhaust manifold... ...the new weight now matches the 83-84 Rabbit GTI, but that's not what I requested.

These cars will continue to get screwed by the CRB. The 2080# weight has no basis in anything. Even if you use the claimed output that a former ITAC member said he saw, the car is still heavy at 2080#. The Rabbit GTI was one of the early cars to be adjusted under TGR. There was no formal process in place at the time. What they did, was simply shave 100# off of the old, pre-TGR, weight. There's no math anywhere that supports the 2080# weight. If you run the process in reverse, using the 2080# spec weight, you come up w/ an ~39% (38.72% to be exact) power factor, based on the stock hp published value of 90hp. I don't think there's any car in IT that has a power factor that high. And as someone that's spent a lot of time w/ this motor, and spent a lot of time on the phone w/ some of the top VW engine builders in the country, there is no way that an IT-legal JH motor will make anywhere near the hp (124.85 per the process) to require a weight of 2080#

And when I read your post, I thought that April, 2011 must be a typo. No way that a simple re-process request should take upwards of 16 months. But when I went back and started looking at the letter numbers, it looks like they're over 8000 now. Really? Almost 16 months to deal w/ a re-process request? And then do nothing more than set it at the same weight at the Rabbit GTI? Does anybody think that's acceptable?


The. Sciroco II and rabbit should be classes the same per it rules. Barring suspension design or drivetrain configuration differences, etc.. any 2 cars with the same engine should be the same weight when in the same class in IT.

What the letter asked for was a reprocess, and what the crb gave was a match to the golf. That was the crb's decision, and its resonably fair if not "the process". At least the roc isn't getting screwed any worse than the gti any more.

FTFY


Open question to the current ITAC, Doesn't the ITAC Ops Manual require supporting documentation in cases where the spec weight differs from the process weight? I know it talks about a 75% confidence vote for deviation from the published process, w/ supporting data like dyno sheets, etc.

[JeffYoung]

These cars will continue to get screwed by the CRB. The 2080# weight has no basis in anything. Even if you use the claimed output that a former ITAC member said he saw, the car is still heavy at 2080#. The Rabbit GTI was one of the early cars to be adjusted under TGR. There was no formal process in place at the time. What they did, was simply shave 100# off of the old, pre-TGR, weight. There's no math anywhere that supports the 2080# weight. If you run the process in reverse, using the 2080# spec weight, you come up w/ an ~39% (38.72% to be exact) power factor, based on the stock hp published value of 90hp. I don't think there's any car in IT that has a power factor that high. And as someone that's spent a lot of time w/ this motor, and spent a lot of time on the phone w/ some of the top VW engine builders in the country, there is no way that an IT-legal JH motor will make anywhere near the hp (124.85 per the process) to require a weight of 2080#

And when I read your post, I thought that April, 2011 must be a typo. No way that a simple re-process request should take upwards of 16 months. But when I went back and started looking at the letter numbers, it looks like they're over 8000 now. Really? Almost 16 months to deal w/ a re-process request? And then do nothing more than set it at the same weight at the Rabbit GTI? Does anybody think that's acceptable?



FTFY


Open question to the current ITAC, Doesn't the ITAC Ops Manual require supporting documentation in cases where the spec weight differs from the process weight? I know it talks about a 75% confidence vote for deviation from the published process, w/ supporting data like dyno sheets, etc.

Yes, but the CRB can still proceed as it wants.

We recommended a process weight for this car. The CRB went a different direction.

[Bill Miller]

Yes, but the CRB can still proceed as it wants.

We recommended a process weight for this car. The CRB went a different direction.

So what you're saying is that the ITAC needs to meet a 75% confidence vote from its members, as well as have supporting data and documentation, when they want to deviate from the process, but the CRB is held to no such standard, and can essentially pull numbers out of their ass w/o any supporting data or publishing any kind of justification? And people are ok w/ that?

[Knestis]

That's how it's been as long as the ad hoc committees have existed.

We should be glad when it works like this - where the ad hoc actually passes a recommendation to the board, and they act on it. What is REALLY NOT OK is when the CRB farks around with that system:

** Not making any decision on a request on which the ad hoc has made its recommendation

** Sending recommendations back for the ITAC to "sharpen its pencils" and change them, rather than giving them an up-or-down decision

** Back-rooming the ad hoc by putting them in a place where they were pressured to make a particular recommendation in the first place (i.e., "Don't bother making that recommendation; we'll never approve it.")

It was issues like that that led to the massive turnover in ITAC membership we had not so long ago. My experience showed me that they could be tracked to a couple of key board members, including the board liaison to the ad hoc. Some of the recent weirdness we've seen in the past few months seems awfully familiar.

K

EDIT - Insert "Kirk is just a bitter, disgruntled grouch" disclaimer here.

[Flyinglizard]

The Rabbit and Rocco have some of the longest racing history of any of these cars. The Rabbit has shown that it needs about 100# to keep the Rocco in sight.
Like I said, having run both cars, 50# and the Rocc will pass the Rabbit 9/10 times. ( thats why we have one).
Having the car at the same weight, just shows the non logical process program. ITAC has not looked at the real data or asked members about the real life values for some pretty well known values.

The ITAC should be running the class , not the CRB. The ITAC is the customer/market , the CRB just does what it wants. We want the right weights, based upon history of known good values/car/ actual laptimes,etc.
The CRB should just worry about the safety items. Stay out of our sand box. It is not a national class.
IMHO. :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

The CRB should just worry about the safety items. Stay out of our sand box. It is not a national class.
IMHO. :)

I have heard this more than once. In the end, the buck stops with the committee that has to report to the BoD. They have the 10,000 foot stuff to deal with and god bless them for doing that stuff.

The BoD needs a singular group that is responsible for the administration of the classes. Since there are so many, the CRB needs the Ad-Hocs to do the leg-work and make recommendations. In theory, the AH's are the ground-level, reporting what the class is feeling/wanting/thinking and making recommendations as such.

The issue with IT IMHO is that the drivers don't really want it 'run' like the other classes 'need' to be run. Back when Peter Keene took over SSB and SSC, we talked briefly about how to implement a 'Process' for those classes. In the end, given the wide range of stock HP and TQ numbers, I could not figure out a way to make it work...so you had to just do your best with the tweaking in order to try and keep the parity. Something IT is not used to nor is interested in. I believe fully that once you immerse yourself in that 'tweaking' culture, it is very hard not to try and apply it across the board.

In the end we have to believe that those on the CRB are dong what they think is right for the classes and if (we think) they are missing the mark in the class we love, the drivers need to write in and be counted - hopefully with constructive suggestions.

[Flyinglizard]

Seems like , for a member driven club, we dont drive too well. The paper takes so so long to get processed. If ITAC has a equation that is supposed to factor the cars, they should be allowed to use it. Post factoring, the ITAC should also be allowed to correct small mistakes. If we have cars that are well out of the running due to improper weights,(ITA MR-2, VW 16V, etc. ) they are behind the house, sitting in the rain. Or waiting to get Chumpified.
The club should ,IMHO, help most of the cars stay close to a "target car"(baseline power to weight/actual laptimes) , for each class. This would be the most common car for each class. The nation has a big spread of tracks with different areas favoring bigger power cars vs lateral powwer cars of course. But most of the same cars run near the front.
Take the top 5 cars per finish, toss the 1st and 5th, average the fast lap times, bingo, target lap time potential ,for the class.
Very few IT cars are 100% builds,on good tires.. The winner usually is.
Very few guys will spend a lot of money to race for 10th . It takes a lot of money to race, we all should have a chance, on paper.

FWIW, I had My College age Son home , taking weight out of his Rocco, so that he may run in the front of the HP cars next week. The car was very fast last time and we were 50# over. If he had no chance , he would have been @ school all weekend. And we would not go racing next. simple , racer has a chance, racer races.
How do we get younger racers? Cheap cars that they can work on. Cheap cars that they can bump and not ruin Dad's wallet.
Later, MM

[JeffYoung]

I don't agree with the decision on the Scirocco but it is an outlier. The CRB supports us and our recommendations 95% (or so) of the time.

[Bill Miller]

That's how it's been as long as the ad hoc committees have existed.

We should be glad when it works like this - where the ad hoc actually passes a recommendation to the board, and they act on it. What is REALLY NOT OK is when the CRB farks around with that system:

** Not making any decision on a request on which the ad hoc has made its recommendation

** Sending recommendations back for the ITAC to "sharpen its pencils" and change them, rather than giving them an up-or-down decision

** Back-rooming the ad hoc by putting them in a place where they were pressured to make a particular recommendation in the first place (i.e., "Don't bother making that recommendation; we'll never approve it.")

It was issues like that that led to the massive turnover in ITAC membership we had not so long ago. My experience showed me that they could be tracked to a couple of key board members, including the board liaison to the ad hoc. Some of the recent weirdness we've seen in the past few months seems awfully familiar.

K

EDIT - Insert "Kirk is just a bitter, disgruntled grouch" disclaimer here.

Agreed, those are even worse scenarios.


I have heard this more than once. In the end, the buck stops with the committee that has to report to the BoD. They have the 10,000 foot stuff to deal with and god bless them for doing that stuff.

The BoD needs a singular group that is responsible for the administration of the classes. Since there are so many, the CRB needs the Ad-Hocs to do the leg-work and make recommendations. In theory, the AH's are the ground-level, reporting what the class is feeling/wanting/thinking and making recommendations as such.

The issue with IT IMHO is that the drivers don't really want it 'run' like the other classes 'need' to be run. Back when Peter Keene took over SSB and SSC, we talked briefly about how to implement a 'Process' for those classes. In the end, given the wide range of stock HP and TQ numbers, I could not figure out a way to make it work...so you had to just do your best with the tweaking in order to try and keep the parity. Something IT is not used to nor is interested in. I believe fully that once you immerse yourself in that 'tweaking' culture, it is very hard not to try and apply it across the board.

In the end we have to believe that those on the CRB are dong what they think is right for the classes and if (we think) they are missing the mark in the class we love, the drivers need to write in and be counted - hopefully with constructive suggestions.

Agreed w/ that as well Andy.


I don't agree with the decision on the Scirocco but it is an outlier. The CRB supports us and our recommendations 95% (or so) of the time.

My whole issue with this thing is that why is the CRB not held to the same confidence standards and documentation standards as the ITAC (or any AdHoc for that matter). If the CRB is going to deviate from an AdHoc recommendation, there should be a pretty compelling reason for it, and they (CRB) should provide that reason(s). In addition to that, the CRB should own those deviations. Without the distinguished gentleman from NC (that's you Jeff :happy204:) coming on here and saying that the ITAC made a recommendation that was different than what the CRB implemented, no one would know that the 2080# weight for the Scirocco II didn't come straight from the ITAC. And think about how many members of the IT community don't frequent this board. They have no idea that the ITAC didn't send that weight to the CRB.

So, in the interest of transparency and objectivity, if the CRB is going to overturn a recommendation from an AdHoc, there should be something in the FasTrack entry that indicates this. If everything is on the up and up, there's no reason for the CRB not to own their decision, and let the membership know that's what the situation is. Otherwise, it's really no different than it was 10 years ago, when everything was done behind closed doors.

There are a few people that fought a long, hard, good fight to get IT where it is today. It's a shame if in the end, it really is no different now than it was then.

[Hoof Hearted]

I don't agree with the decision on the Scirocco but it is an outlier.

Outlier or not, what was the CRB's rationale for not going with the ITAC's recommendation of reducing the Scirocco II by the requested 181 lbs? Was it: "Ooooh... ...a 181 reduction request? That's too much... ...let's pat him on the head and throw him a 50 lbs reduction bone."

The CRB hit the easy button by matching the weight of the Rabbit GTI because the cars are essentially the same sans areo. The CRB confirmed the weight was wrong, but the weight is still wrong, per the process...

Either use the published process, or ditch it and make decisions using a Magic 8-Ball.

[shwah]

I don't know that the cars are wrong at this point. They certainly do make more than process power with IT mods.

[Flyinglizard]

What ever the weight is . It should not be the same as the Rabbit. .. The Rocc is faster.

[Bill Miller]

I don't know that the cars are wrong at this point. They certainly do make more than process power with IT mods.

Do they make more than a 25% gain? Maybe. Do they make the 125hp to justify a 2080# weight? Not a chance. It takes quite a bit of massaging to get 125hp out of a JH motor, and that's just not going to happen w/ an IT-legal build. Sure, the stock 'toilet bowl' exhaust manifold is a huge choke on power, but once you fix that, there's not that much left w/ the stock cam and stock throttle body.

[Chip42]

Outlier or not, what was the CRB's rationale for not going with the ITAC's recommendation...
Either use the published process, or ditch it and make decisions using a Magic 8-Ball.
They don't always tell us their rational, and they don't have to. the ITAC uses the process, the CRB has agrred to follow the recommendations of the ITAC in most cases. it's how the system works.

if you think the JH engine cars should be lighter, write a letter stating as much, and ASK for a weight deduction on both the Wabbit and the Roc. per process.

[Bill Miller]

They don't always tell us their rational, and they don't have to. the ITAC uses the process, the CRB has agrred to follow the recommendations of the ITAC in most cases. it's how the system works.

if you think the JH engine cars should be lighter, write a letter stating as much, and ASK for a weight deduction on both the Wabbit and the Roc. per process.

Chip,

With all due respect, isn't that essentially what Brooke did? He wrote a letter asking for the JH-engined SII to be classified per the process. He even went so far as to put the process data in his letter. Why should anyone have to do it again? Also, if you guys sent the process weight up to the CRB, and they threw it in the crapper, why would you expect it to be different the next time? If the last one took upwards of 16 months to get resolved, how long will the next one take?

You guys (ITAC) have to bust your butts to make sure the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed, but the CRB can SWAG it, and everyone is ok w/ that? With no supporting evidence, one could get the perception that the CRB (or at least a member or two) are trying to screw over a car(s) to protect their own (or their friend's) turf. It's not like that hasn't happened in the past.

Here you've got a guy like Brooke, who's relatively new to the SCCA. He's interested in running a SII in ITB. Looks at the process, looks at the numbers for the SII, and things don't add up. So he makes a request to get it corrected. Not only does it take way over a year to get it addressed, he gets a result that has no basis in anything, and no explanation as to why. And the SCCA says it is focused on getting new members and retaining them? When they pull stunts like this?

As the old saying goes, same whore, different wig.:dead_horse::dead_horse:

[Knestis]

The CRB can do any damned thing they want.

If we don't like it, we have to make sure our board members understand our displeasure. They, unlike the CRB, are elected.

K

[Chip42]

Chip,

With all due respect, ...As the old saying goes, same whore, different wig.:dead_horse::dead_horse:

Bill - I'm not disagreeing, but as the tea leaves were read to me recently - gotta ask for both. I got the impression from at least one member that the A1 and roc WOULD be accepted at least closer to if not AT process weight. so I was pretty surprised when I saw the published response. again, though, I don't think the end result is "unfair" but it is not what we recommended. see above.

the timing thing sucks, agreed. that letter and a couple of others sat around on the ITAC agenda for a reallllllllly long time. no excuses, but we have REALLY cleared a lot of the logjam out and had a lot of CRB support and communication along the way.

[Ron Earp]

The CRB can do any damned thing they want.

If we don't like it, we have to make sure our board members understand our displeasure. They, unlike the CRB, are elected.

K

Agreed. It really is simple:

Stock hp --> Process --> Race weight. Adjust race weight if needed after observing for a sufficient time and over a proper number of efforts.

We need a change in the CRB / ITAC functionality.

[lateapex911]

Bill - I'm not disagreeing, but as the tea leaves were read to me recently - gotta ask for both. I got the impression from at least one member that the A1 and roc WOULD be accepted at least closer to if not AT process weight. so I was pretty surprised when I saw the published response. again, though, I don't think the end result is "unfair" but it is not what we recommended. see above.

the timing thing sucks, agreed. that letter and a couple of others sat around on the ITAC agenda for a reallllllllly long time. no excuses, but we have REALLY cleared a lot of the logjam out and had a lot of CRB support and communication along the way.

When I was on the ITAC, a request that came in referencing one model (Think Toyota MR2 motor, for example) caused us to consider the same engine in other cars. In other words, while the request might be for the Borgward Speedtastic, a 2.0 litre FWD strut car in ITA, we would automatically also look at the Borward Speedorific, a 2.o litre RWD strut car in ITA. Same engine, same process numbers. (Final weight result different due to RWD/FWD process math differences)

The FWD car would get processed and changed and the RWD car would get processed and changed.

Whats this "ignore identical cars in the same class" crap? Seems like it's convenient 'blinders'.
Look I know you guys were wading through ITB stuff, but, jeeez, it sure is sad to have the CRB mucking around with the result, just cuz they feel like it.
Infuriating, really.


Mike: Those cars should weigh the same in the book, even though you see differences between them. Those factors can not be considered and nailed accurately across the 300 car ITCS, so they are not. There will be cases when no factored items affect the cars raceability, and 'identical" cars wind up differently on track, and thats just the way it is. Race the better one. IT is still 'warts and all' in the end...