Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[erlrich]

Minutes are here (http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/November2012.minutes.pdf)
Tech bulletin is here (http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/TB12-11FinalOctoberMeetingNovemberFastrack.pdf)

Of note in IT:


CRX 1.5 (88-91) moved to ITB
'86 Mustang GT in ITR
ITB MR2 loses 100 lbs - Yea!!
ITB Accord loses 100 lbs
4th gen Camaro 3.4L in ITS

[Ron Earp]

4th gen Camaro 3.4L in ITR


Sure that wasn't ITS? I wrote that letter for classification and that 3.4L V6 sure as hell doesn't belong in R.

[tom91ita]

...ITB Accord loses 100 lbs...

could a ITAC member provide background on why the 1.25 factor applies to this Honda 12V and not others?

or does this make all of them 1.25? honestly, i have forgotten.

thanks.

[erlrich]

Sure that wasn't ITS? I wrote that letter for classification and that 3.4L V6 sure as hell doesn't belong in R.

Sorry, you're correct sir - I was mixing that with the ITR Moostang.

[mossaidis]

Thanks Earl.

I see STAC cleared up the STCS rules regarding aero devices, which was part of my request, including definition for splitters. Awesome.

Question for the ITAC, I asked for an IT rules intrepration as well and all I got was "Thank you for your letter. The rule is correct as written." I am really confused since I was being as specific as i could with my question(s), or so I thought.

[tderonne]

ITA Escort stays in ITA. Can't say I agree. Same motor in ITB already. If the process works, it should be an ITB or ITA car at different weights. Can't get to the ITA weight so it should be in B. Seemed like a simple request. Does mean it keeps 7" rims, which are easier to find. Maybe a more detailed request. One I wrote was simple, thought that'd be enough.

[erlrich]

Thanks Earl.

I see STAC cleared up the STCS rules regarding aero devices, which was part of my request, including definition for splitters. Awesome.

Question for the ITAC, I asked for an IT rules intrepration as well and all I got was "Thank you for your letter. The rule is correct as written." I am really confused since I was being as specific as i could with my question(s), or so I thought.

Yeah, which is kinda funny, as the response to my request was more verbose than I would have expected. Not that I'm complaining mind you (although I did think the reply made it sound like I was asking them to class MY car in STL...), but just seemed a little out of character.

[Greg Amy]

You're welcome... ;)

We thought it was a reasonable request that deserved an explanation. So you got one.

Generally speaking about interpretations, there's disagreements as to whether we should use the committees, CRB, and Fastrack for rules clarifications/interpretations. Some say we should use the GCR-defined process, others counter that process is for trying to gain first-mover advantage on a competitive idea/interpretation. I infer that the current hierarchy leans toward "give 'em a reasonable answer, unless it appears someone's trying to twist a rule around and get us to effectively change a reg".

[ajmr2]

ITB MR2 loses 100 lbs - Yea!!

I'm almost speechless. Waiting for official Fastrack.
:eclipsee_steering:

[erlrich]

I'm almost speechless. Waiting for official Fastrack.
:eclipsee_steering:

I can't wait to see that first MR2 taking a victory lap! :smilie_pokal:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks Earl.

I see STAC cleared up the STCS rules regarding aero devices, which was part of my request, including definition for splitters. Awesome.

Question for the ITAC, I asked for an IT rules intrepration as well and all I got was "Thank you for your letter. The rule is correct as written." I am really confused since I was being as specific as i could with my question(s), or so I thought.
Care to share your letter here?

[ajmr2]

As much as I'd like to think it will help, it's not going to make up 3 or 4 seconds a lap at the Point! But we'll take it!

[Chip42]

Question for the ITAC, I asked for an IT rules intrepration as well and all I got was "Thank you for your letter. The rule is correct as written." I am really confused since I was being as specific as i could with my question(s), or so I thought.


Care to share your letter here?

I'm not copying Mickey's letter from the board, but he effectively asked the same question regarding mounting / under car components that went unanswered by the COA in the moser splitter protest, coupled with a request for a general rewrite to clarify air dam / splitter mounting rules. the committee felt that this was partially a request for a ruling of legality, which ad hoc committees don't do, and partially a request to rewrite a long-standing rule. the committee members were split in our interpretations of current the rule's allowances and requirements, and it predating all of us (I think), chose to not attempt to clarify/modify and in so doing, make some portion of the cars out there illegal or codify a specifically more open rule, depending on your point of view on the matter. in the end, we decided to let the protest / appeals process iron it out.

I appologize for the terse response. the letter's point is valid, the request is for clarification of a gray area, and I would love to see a ruling made. unfortunately, the ITAC is not the place for such a thing.

if you want to submit a legality ruling, there is a procedure for doing so in the GCR, and I do think it's a valid question.

[Greg Amy]

I see STAC cleared up the STCS rules regarding aero devices, which was part of my request, including definition for splitters. Awesome.
Mickey, the STAC never got a letter from you regarding splitters...were you asking for splitter clarifications in IT? We had requested that the definition of a splitter be placed in the GCR Technical Glossary but the CRB decided to keep it in the STCS for now. - GA

Edit:


...he effectively asked the same question regarding mounting / under car components that went unanswered by the COA in the moser splitter protest, coupled with a request for a general rewrite to clarify air dam / splitter mounting rules.
A Pandora's Box in Improved Touring.

Splitters are not explicitly allowed in Improved Touring. However, the verbiage for airdams in the ITCS - which have been around for decades - are nebulous enough to where competitors have leveraged them to create splitters and undertrays. It's a long-standing argument, debated ad nausea on this forum over the years. First time I saw one I thought it was cheating, until I opened up the rulebook and read the words. Then I was convinced that while it may not be in the spirit/intent of the original rules, it was certainly within the letter.

And before someone throws back "how do you know what the intent was" argument, remember I was in IT back in the mid-80s when it was new, and I remember how cars used to look back when those regs were written...;)

If the ITAC were to decide to pursue a clarification on this allowing splitters, I recommend looking at the verbiage the STAC just proposed for 2013. I stole a lot of the ITCS verbiage for that change, detailing how an airdam, undertray, and splitter are to be done. The ITCS could use the same verbiage, changing only the allowance to extend 2" outside the bodyline and adjusting the ride height limit.

However, note that the reason we decided to allow STL to go 2" outside the body outline was because there are numerous cars that, because of the front end design, cannot have any splitter at all. We decided it was more equitable to allow all competitors at least a 2" splitter (splitters gain most of their value at 2"-3", from there the advantages drop off sharply.)

Please note that if anyone ever sends in requests that are intended for more than one committee (e.g., Super Touring and Improved Touring) it's best to breka them out into two different requests. The STAC never saw Mickey's letter; the regs we published for ST were purely and completely coincidental...

[JeffYoung]

Chip explained the splitter rule clarification. It's probably one that needs to be cleared up via the protest process.

Tom, the default gain number for all classes is now 1.25.

3.4 Camaro is in ITS.

[Chip42]

ITA Escort stays in ITA. Can't say I agree. Same motor in ITB already. If the process works, it should be an ITB or ITA car at different weights. Can't get to the ITA weight so it should be in B. Seemed like a simple request. Does mean it keeps 7" rims, which are easier to find. Maybe a more detailed request. One I wrote was simple, thought that'd be enough.

ITB 1.8L protege has an FP-DE motor, ITA 1.8L protege is BP-DE, just liek the Escort GT/LXE. we looked at weight in both classes, power potential, and got input form a member of the committee who owns and races an ITA Escort GT and the sum of that data said to leave it in ITA. I'd agree it's not a likely podium topper, but we feel it's still too much for ITB.

[ajmr2]

I don't want to jinx it before it's officially in the Fastrack, so I will save my thank youse until then. But you guys know who you are...

[mossaidis]

http://www.tamemymind.com/blog/images2007/smiley-bangheadonwall.gif

[Knestis]

http://www.tamemymind.com/blog/images2007/smiley-bangheadonwall.gif

The ITAC can't make interpretations. Heck - they can't even make rules. They make recommendations, the CRB makes the rules, and the appeals process makes the interpretations.

Think "branches of government."

K

[mossaidis]

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Robert Moser vs. First Review Rules Interpretation, COA ref. No. 09-RI-02
June 25, 2009
FACTS IN BRIEF

On January 1, 2009, Robert Moser submitted a request for Rules Interpretation asking for a ruling on the compliance of the spoiler/air dam on his 1988 Honda CRX Si ITA relative to GCR 9.1.3.D.8.b. Pursuant to GCR 8.1.4., Ken Patterson, Chairman of the Stewards’ Program, appointed a Review Committee of Rick Mitchell, Bob Eddy, and Tom Brown, Chairman, who met, reviewed Mr. Moser’s submissions and documentation, and spoke with Mr. Moser on several occasions. They concluded that the spoiler is non-compliant because the spoiler/air dam is not mounted onto the body of the car, as mandated by 9.1.3.D.8.b. Mr. Moser is appealing that decision to the Court.

DATES OF THE COURT

The Court of Appeals (COA) Dick Templeton, David Nokes, and Robert Horansky, Chairman, met on June 4, 11, 18, and 25, 2009 to
hear, review, and render a decision on the request.

DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED

1. Letter and supporting documentation from Mr. Moser requesting a Rules Interpretation, dated January 1, 2009.
2. Review Committee decision, dated May 18, 2009.
3. Appeal letter from Mr. Moser, dated May 28, 2009.
4. Appeal Notification, dated May 29, 2009.
5. Email statements from Bob Dowie, Club Racing Board Chairman, dated June 14 and June 24, 2009.

FINDINGS

In the original request, Mr. Moser sought “guidance regarding whether a ‘splitter’ design using two or more panels that attach to the integrated bumper, the radiator support panel and inner fender liners, and that has openings in the horizontal plane between the integrated bumper and vertical face of the splitter with free flow of air behind the face of the integrated bumper is legal on an IT car under 9.1.3.D.8.b.”Multiple components may be joined to create an air dam, whose shape is unrestricted - thus allowing a “splitter” lip which must not protrude beyond the body when viewed from above. The panel must be attached to the body or bumper cover (if the car is so equipped), but no support may extend aft of the forward-most part of the front fender wheel opening. However, there may be no openings in the horizontal plane between the integrated bumper and vertical face of the air dam (splitter) that allow the free flow of air. Any openings in the air dam must be ducted to either the brakes or the oil cooler. Mr. Moser’s design incorporates unducted openings, and is therefore non-compliant.

DECISION

The Court of Appeals upholds the determination of the Review Committee that the design is non-compliant; however, the basis for the non-compliance is not the attachment design, but rather the presence of the unducted openings. The Court of Appeals finds that Mr. Moser’s appeal is well founded and his appeal fee, less the amount retained by SCCA, will be returned.

http://www.tamemymind.com/blog/images2007/smiley-bangheadonwall.gif

1) Thank you for time given to me and my request by the ITAC, much appreciated, honestly.
2) What has changed since 2009 which allows Mr. Moser to place a rules interpretation with SCCA, I assume, through the CRB/ITAC (www.crbscca.com) and I can't? What are we missing besides ad nausea on this topic?
3) After my NHMS incidents, I would like to re-install aeros devices on my car before spring. I submitted evidence to the ITAC/CRB that this is a grey area where I selfishly require clarification before I invest more money in my car and unselfishly give enough notice to both those with or without splitters time to act accordingly.
4) If you leave it the judicial arm of the SCCA, you are forcing me to protest one of friends in IT that runs a splitter to get a "clear" answer, which would probably vary by region... yeah, not very clear.
5) The final response of the Court Of Appeals on Moser request is VERY SINFUL in my opinion. "With all due respect" to the governing SCCA body, let's man up and let's make a decision. I hope the timing of my request is just "off" and if so, I will make 2 rules change request to the ITAC in the coming months.

Unapologetically and appreciatively, Mickey

[Chip42]

Mickey
GCR 8.1.4 spells out "compliance review."

the downside is that it costs $300. I'm betting a fundraiser could be started to gather that as there is sufficent interest in a ruling.

IF the thing under review is found compliant, you get a letter saying so and the result is not published in order to maintain the benefit of an innovation. If the review is found non compliant, it will appear with a full finding in the COA briefs in Fastrack for all to see.

I agree that the court failed us in the moser case as there were too many aspects to consider and they failed the whole device on some of the less gray points, namely unducted openings between the air dam and body work. the undertray, aft-of body mounting (using the GCR definition of body), etc.. remain unanswered and "gray".

a ruling can give the rule direction, and if desired, members can petition for revisions based on that. that would be somethign the ITAC and CRB can actually work with.

NOT ITAC/OFFICIAL RESPONSE:
I personally feel the rule allows a full undertray splitter provided that the entirety of the thing remain forward of the front fender opening leading edge, within the overhead or plan-view of the body including integrated bumpers, and the body and air dam are sealed to one another so as not to create unducted openings or oepnings ducted in ways not allowed by the rules, such as in the moser example. I think the structural mounting or supports may be behind the body, such as OEM tie down attaching points on the bumper horns as are often used, and I think the COA agrees with me based on the moser findings (though it's not explicit).

others feel that an undertray is legal, but all mounting and support bust be to the body, NOT structural points of the car interior to the body, making the strength and thus the usefullness of an undertray low in most cases. still others think a splitter in any form is not allowed and therefore illegal.

[mossaidis]

Chip, thank you for your official and non-official responses. I will read 8.1.4 in detail tonight and decide how to proceed.

[StephenB]

Looks like the CRX moved to B as well.

Improved Touring
ITA
1. #9410 (SCCA Staff) Re-Classify the Honda CRX 1.5L (standard) (88-91) to ITB
Reclassify the ITA Honda CRX 1.5L (standard) (88-91) to ITB as classified in ITA with the following
exceptions:
Weight: 2000 2110
Gear Ratios: 3.25, 1.65, 1.03, 0.82 or 3.25, 1.89, 1.26, 0.94, 0.77

[tom91ita]

So this was the August 2009 moser inquiry?


. COURT OF APPEALS
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Robert Moser vs. First Review Rules Interpretation, COA ref. No. 09-RI-02 June 25, 2009
FACTS IN BRIEF
On January 1, 2009, Robert Moser submitted a request for Rules Interpretation asking for a ruling on the compliance of the spoiler/air dam on his 1988 Honda CRX Si ITA relative to GCR 9.1.3.D.8.b. Pursuant to GCR 8.1.4., Ken Patterson, Chairman of the Stewards’ Program, appointed a Review Committee of Rick Mitchell, Bob Eddy, and Tom Brown, Chairman, who met, reviewed Mr. Moser’s sub- missions and documentation, and spoke with Mr. Moser on several occasions. They concluded that the spoiler is non-compliant because the spoiler/air dam is not mounted onto the body of the car, as mandated by 9.1.3.D.8.b.
Mr. Moser is appealing that decision to the Court.
DATES OF THE COURT
The Court of Appeals (COA) Dick Templeton, David Nokes, and Robert Horansky, Chairman, met on June 4, 11, 18, and 25, 2009 to hear, review, and render a decision on the request.
DOCUMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED
1. Letter and supporting documentation from Mr. Moser requesting a Rules Interpretation, dated January 1, 2009. 2. Review Committee decision, dated May 18, 2009.
3. Appeal letter from Mr. Moser, dated May 28, 2009.
4. Appeal Notification, dated May 29, 2009.
5. Email statements from Bob Dowie, Club Racing Board Chairman, dated June 14 and June 24, 2009.
FINDINGS
In the original request, Mr. Moser sought “guidance regarding whether a ‘splitter’ design using two or more panels that attach to the integrated bumper, the radiator support panel and inner fender liners, and that has openings in the horizontal plane between the inte- grated bumper and vertical face of the splitter with free flow of air behind the face of the integrated bumper is legal on an IT car under 9.1.3.D.8.b.”
Multiple components may be joined to create an air dam, whose shape is unrestricted - thus allowing a “splitter” lip which must not protrude beyond the body when viewed from above. The panel must be attached to the body or bumper cover (if the car is so equipped), but no support may extend aft of the forward-most part of the front fender wheel opening. However, there may be no open- ings in the horizontal plane between the integrated bumper and vertical face of the air dam (splitter) that allow the free flow of air. Any openings in the air dam must be ducted to either the brakes or the oil cooler.
Mr. Moser’s design incorporates unducted openings, and is therefore non-compliant.
DECISION
The Court of Appeals upholds the determination of the Review Committee that the design is non-compliant; however, the basis for the non-compliance is not the attachment design, but rather the presence of the unducted openings.
The Court of Appeals finds that Mr. Moser’s appeal is well founded and his appeal fee, less the amount retained by SCCA, will be returned.

[shwah]

Minutes are here (http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/November2012.minutes.pdf)
Tech bulletin is here (http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/TB12-11FinalOctoberMeetingNovemberFastrack.pdf)

Of note in IT:


CRX 1.5 (88-91) moved to ITB
'86 Mustang GT in ITR
ITB MR2 loses 100 lbs - Yea!!
ITB Accord loses 100 lbs
4th gen Camaro 3.4L in ITS



Production here I come. I will race some B next year to get seat time, but as far as I am concerned you have succeeded in pushing the original "bogey" car for the ITB process out of the class.

[Greg Amy]

This is a very unofficial "I'm not on the STAC and this is my opinion" post...


GCR 8.1.4 spells out "compliance review."
Chip, back in '07/08 or so, AJ Nealey and Gregg Ginsberg used the GCR process to get clarification on the intake on a competitor's ITA car. Along with their response to that process, they got a STERN rebuke about using this GCR process as a way to "clarify" a reg. My inference from the reply was that using this process to do ANYTHING but clarify something presented as a **NEW** competitive advantage was a waste of the process' time and an abomination of mankind (it was, IMO, a rude and inappropriate reply).

What you are suggesting is, based on that experience, a direct contravening of the GCR. And, I suggest, if a reg is not clear, and is in reality possibly being applied in direct conflict with the intent of the regs, it is decisively within the committee's responsibility to "clarify" that interpretation and/or correct the verbiage in the regs.

I do not think it proper to ask a competitor to develop a whole farcical protest to "test" validity of an application of a reg, nor do I think it proper to use that GCR clarification process to have the CRB - and by extension, the ITAC - make a formal decision as to the application of a rule. If there's any question - and by your direct reply above, there is decisive and well-known debate within the ITAC - as to how well or not a reg is being applied, it is within your authority - within your responsibility - to clarify it by interpretation and/or adjustment in the verbiage of the regs.

My 2 cents.

GA

P.S., please read my sig....

[tom91ita]

At best I think we had a split decision in the above. One group said it was illegal because of the mounting method and the next review said that the mounting method was okay and it was the openings that were illegal.

But my personal opinion is much like what Chip described.

[Chip42]

Production here I come. I will race some B nex year to get seat time, but as far as I am concerned you have succeeded in pushing the original "bogey" car for theiTB process out of the class.

Man I hate to hear this. and I think ITB is pretty healthy, even with these changes and additions.

[Chip42]

This is a very unofficial "I'm not on the STAC and this is my opinion" post...


Chip, back in '07/08 or so, AJ Nealey and Gregg Ginsberg used the GCR process to get clarification on the intake on a competitor's ITA car. Along with their response to that process, they got a STERN rebuke about using this GCR process as a way to "clarify" a reg. My inference from the reply was that using this process to do ANYTHING but clarify something presented as a **NEW** competitive advantage was a waste of the process' time and an abomination of mankind (it was, IMO, a rude and inappropriate reply).

What you are suggesting is, based on that experience, a direct contravening of the GCR. And, I suggest, if a reg is not clear, and is in reality possibly being applied in direct conflict with the intent of the regs, it is decisively within the committee's responsibility to "clarify" that interpretation and/or correct the verbiage in the regs.

I do not think it proper to ask a competitor to develop a whole farcical protest to "test" validity of an application of a reg, nor do I think it proper to use that GCR clarification process to have the CRB - and by extension, the ITAC - make a formal decision as to the application of a rule. If there's any question - and by your direct reply above, there is decisive and well-known debate within the ITAC - as to how well or not a reg is being applied, it is within your authority - within your responsibility - to clarify it by interpretation and/or adjustment in the verbiage of the regs.

My 2 cents.

GA

P.S., please read my sig....

GA, my reply is based as much on what I've seen here and at the track as what was discussed on the ITAC. the splitter / air dam debate is well known.

the ITAC does not provide legality rulings, only recommendations and clarifications. from the Advisory Committee Manual

Clarifications—While the Club Racing Board, when they write a rule, understand it totally and there is no doubt in the Board of Directors minds when they approved it, sometimes a few competitors will interpret it in a completely different manner. Thus a clarification is born. A clarification cannot result in a substantive alteration of a rule, merely an expression of its original intent. If it appears that a clarification will result in a totally new meaning, then it becomes in effect a rule change.

The ITAC did not agree on the intent, so any decision would have been effectively a rule change, and we felt the letter was more of a request for a ruling of legality and that the pot was better unstirred.

I did not know about the CRB/COA reply to Gregg and AJ. that's interesting, and a shame. one would figure that the PTB would relish the chance to do what they do on a volunteer level for a $300 fee to the club, particularly when it is a process spelled out in the GCR.

[Greg Amy]

The thing here, Chip, is that we know there's a regs conflict, and we are choosing not to resolve it proactively. I don't think that's right. When the ITAC (and by extension, the STAC and all other "ACs") consciously choose to not address the conflict with verbiage updates, I think we're doing a disservice to the organization.

Said differently, I don't think it's right to recognize there's a conflict and choosing to respond with "rules are correct as written". By your own admission, they most assuredly are not!

But I see the issue here: you change the regs in one direction to make it explicitly compliant and suddenly a lot more people are doing it, or you change the regs in the other direction to make it explicitly non-compliant and suddenly a lot of people are illegal. Well, guess what? By ignoring the situation we are doing a great disservice to both camps.

And, as a great philosopher once said, "If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

And there's certainly precedent: spherical bearings. Many moons ago (seems like forever), we had a spirited debate on this forum when I learned that some folks were using sphericals. As with the first time I saw a splitter, I saw those as contrary to the regulations (and, IMO, the spirit). However, unlike with a splitter, I looked at the regs and found nothing where they met the letter of the regs; after all, how in the hell is a bearing a bushing?? After more spirited debate - which ultimately led to my being "Earp'd" with a "Screw you, I'm running them, if you don't like it protest me" I decided to use the GCR process to get a "clarification". I put together what I thought was a well-written, well-researched, well-presented letter and I had the money in hand to get spherical bearings "clarified" in Improved Touring.

The day before I was to send the request - and I mean the very afternoon before that letter was to hit the post office - word came down that a "clarification" of the rules was going to be in the next Fastrack, making sphericals explicitly compliant. The ITAC/CRB was changing the words in the ITCS to specifically call out sphericals as allowed.

The inference was clear: sphericals were a tortured interpretation of the regs and not compliant to the letter (and by extension, the spirit). However the CRB decided that the "horse was out of the barn" and did not want to make a bunch of competitors change their cars back to bushings. So they changed the regs to match what people were actually doing.

Same goes for splitters: not explicitly called out in the regs, and the mounting methods are questionable. Within the spirit? IMO, not within the spirit of 1985, but certainly within the spirit of 2012. So why not go ahead and change the regs to match what "everybody" is doing? All it would do is even the playing field so that those of us that are not nearly as "creative" in interpreting the regs will understand that these parts are allowed.

And I do believe that is within the authority and responsibility of the CRB/ITAC.

Food for thought.

GA

[Chip42]

changing the rule is absolutely within an AC's mission and "powers" but we chose not to. this rule has been this way for a LOOOOONG time, and it's not hurting anything staying as is. I've never seen or heard of a real "splitter" protest, just ones like moser (in part with added openings) and hines (grafted seamlessly into the bumper cover) and other than these online discussions, I've never seen or heard a spirited debate about them. so its not obvious to me that the rule NEEDS changing. yeah, it'd be nice for the sake of clarity, but there are bigger fish to fry and people are upset enough with rules creep/changes. the greater disservice would be to alienate one portion of the paddock or another with a clarification that they are currently living peacefully without.

[Ron Earp]

l
After more spirited debate - which ultimately led to my being "Earp'd" with a "Screw you, I'm running them, if you don't like it protest me"


Hold now, not to derail the discussion but I protest my name being used in the context of performing an illegal modification. While I mentioned running NACA ducts in my rear windows and would like to do it, after the discussion around them I'm coming around to them being illegal. And, regardless of the discussion, I never performed the modification. On the IT cars I build and tend to I have never carried out any modifications which I thought were illegal, were explicitly illegal, or that the general consensus was that the modification was illegal. So keep Earp out of it.

The splitter debate is important to me. We've not yet built splitters for the Mustangs and I sure don't want to run afoul of the rules, or spend a lot of time engineering a great splitter only to have it deemed illegal. Are there any pictures of this Mosler CRX splitter so one can visualize the shape of the device and the areas deemed illegal?

[tom91ita]

Ron

I don't believe the mosers had any illegal splitters. It was an alternate design they were considering that did not get approved.

[Greg Amy]

l...I protest my name being used in the context of performing an illegal modification.
It was a joke.

Your protest was well-founded, and your fee is being returned to you.

[gran racing]

I just love it. The Accord is set to a weight, it gets reviewed last year and its determined that the weight was in fact too low. The weight gets adjusted. Now some how it gets reduced? Wtf. What new evidence was provided to make this change again? Will other cars with similar engines get the reduction? This is pretty silly.

I'm with you Chris. I've really started losing interest in IT. These changes sure do see odd and can't help think about what politics were involved to push through.

[Greg Amy]

Another data point.

My memory on this specific point is fuzzy, so it could be inaccurate (and AJ and Gregg can confirm/deny) but I seem to recall that they tried to use the protest process to get a clarification on a similar item on the same ITA competitor (same as the one they did the GCR process on). And, as I recall, they were also rebuked (by the local stewards?) for trying to use the protest process for clarification when they're supposed to use the GCR process.

Damned if you do this, damned if you do that.

So based on what we're reading, here's the options and possible results:

Use the protest process

- Friend A protests Friend B on the splitter/mounting ($25). Local stewards find it compliant/non-compliant. "Loser" appeals to Topeka ($25?) and Court of Appeals is formed. CRB and ITAC review the regs and decide what best meets the philosophy of the class. Interpretation is delivered back down. Regs are changed to meet the results.

Use the GCR process

- Friend A sends a GCR clarification request to Topeka ($300). Court of Appeals is formed. CRB and ITAC review the regs and decide what best meets the philosophy of the class. Interpretation is delivered back down. Regs are changed to meet the results.

ITAC/CRB take the proactive steps to clarify/change regs

CRB and ITAC review the regs ($0) and decide what best meets the philosophy of the class. Interpretation is delivered back down. Regs are changed to meet the results.

Seems to be a common theme here....

Or, continue the status quo

No one knows for sure what is compliant and/or not compliant; everybody takes a different interpretation and thus the regs are not applied equitably. Confusion, uncertainty, and general overall dissatisfaction with the process.

But, I suppose there's a third tactic...

Since the ITAC contends it cannot "interpret" a reg, then someone - and please decide one person, so the committee is not inundated - sends a specific request to the CRB to explicitly allow splitters and undertrays in Improved Touring that do not extend outside the body outline of the car, do not go farther back than the wheel opening, and are no lower than the bottom of the wheel, and to explicitly define the "body" in terms of where the pieces/parts can mount. This will result in one of a few possibilities:

- Response is "not within the philosophy of the class" thus clarifying the situation (win), or;
- Regs are changed to explicitly describe what can and cannot be done (win) thus clarifying the situation;
- "Rules are correct as written". Fale. We all agree they are not.

GA

[Chip42]

I just love it. The Accord is set to a weight, it gets reviewed last year and its determined that the weight was in fact too low. The weight gets adjusted. Now some how it gets reduced? Wtf. What new evidence was provided to make this change again? Will other cars with similar engines get the reduction? This is pretty silly.

I'm with you Chris. I've really started losing interest in IT. These changes sure do see odd and can't help think about what politics were involved to push through.

initial change was to bring it inline with other multivalve cars under then prevailing rules. It would have stayed there after the ops manual update, too, in the "lack of better information" category. dyno info was submitted (and more was solicited) showing only ~20% gains but inconclusive to the peak, so we reran it at 25%. A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY went in to making this right. the fact that there were 2 changes in ~1 year is unfortunate but we want cars to be run correctly Even though there are only 2 of these running currently that I'm aware of.

dave, we all know that prelude is effectively the same engine and should be treated the same way. write us a letter. or don't, if you are tired of seeing changes.

Splitter - someone write the letter tGA speaks of.

[mossaidis]

Here's a copy of letter. This has been and always will be a hot area since folks have bent the rules (creative interpretation) while others insist that it's airdam only for IT. Second, though I happy to see STAC getting splitter definition yet it TRULY belongs in the GCR glossary with measurement exceptions made under each class CS section.


Letter ID Number: #9062
Title: IT Rules Interpretation Request - Airdam/Spoiler topics
Class: IT
Request:
Dear SCCA CRB and ITAC,

This request may have come before yet debate continues in the IT forums and in my head when trying to make the next modification to IT car.

Two questions:

1) Many suppliers of airdams/spoilers including current IT racers are stating that radiator supports and front sub-frames are legitimate mounting points for otherwise legal spoiler/airdam kits. Suppliers of front aero devices to NASA drivers also want to provide their same products to SCCA IT drivers. Two, IT drivers designing their own front aero devices would like to make use of additional strong mounting points, allowing them to improve the functionality of their airdams/spoiler, i.e. easily adding splitters, stiffening points, etc. "Body" is defined in the GCR and integrated bumper covers are defined in 9.1.3.D.8.b and no where do I read that radiator supports or front sub-frames (as neither are considered part of the "body" or "bumper cover") are legitimate mounting points for an airdam/spoiler setup on an IT car. Could you please clarify? I submit 5 references.

a) 2 long threads in IT regarding the multiple view points on 9.1.3.D.8.b. I hope you find these threads interesting.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27331&highlight=splitter

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26420&highlight=splitter

b) 1 reference to the 2009 Aug Fasttrack regarding Moser's Appeal. As referenced in the above threads, the outcome of Moser's appeal simply caused more confusion and frustration regarding airdam/spoiler mounting points. Initially, the rules interpretation request found that Moser’s mounting points were illegal. Moser appealed the ruling and the appeal was denied not because of the mounting points but based openings in Moser’s setup were not used for brake ducts. So... are the mounting legal or NOT legal? The ruling did not clarify anything in that area. Very Sinful (on the part of the BoD)

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/Documents/Fastrack/09/08/09-fastrack-aug.pdf

c) product issued by special projects motorsports. This is example where a supplier is interpreting IT rules, suggesting splitter kits with rad mounting points are IT legal.

http://www.specialprojectsms.com/performance-parts/p1-spec-ground-effects/p1-spec-ek-civic-99-00.html

d) message from another supplier of airdams/spoilers to NASA and potentially IT community

"They (SCCA) pretty clearly define a 'box' we can play in. I already see a grey area that we could easily take advantage of. Most times in aerodynamic terms, words are inter-changeable. Do you know the email to the IT director or the director of you specific class? You could shoot them an email and get a definite answer but I'm going to say yes. The rules defining what we can do are almost identical to 944 Super Cup rules which I just made a splitter for a guy not too long ago. I can make something very similar to the picture you sent me in the link of XXXXX car. Send that to the director and make sure.

As for mounting, that’s not an issue. I worked in collision repair for 9 years. If you were to strip off all the bumpers, fenders, hood, doors, etc., you would be left with the unibody. The rad support and frame rails are part of that body. Again, I see this as just a word or phrase interchangeability issue."

2) The use of a splitter is more common in IT classes. Mounting points discuss aside, I believe the GCR may address the functional definition of a splitter under the "airdam" definition. What I find interesting is that under GTCS and STCS rules, one can find multiple references to "splitter" yet no definition in GCR. If there is one, I apologize and would welcome the reference. If there's not, I am requesting the CRB consider a separate "Splitter" definition in the Appendix F, revision to "airdam" definition in Appendix F to specifically mention/include "splitter" OR define splitter in the STCS and GTCS OR something better.

Thank you for your time and understanding. I welcome all discussion including over the phone and email conversations.

Best,

Demetrius Mossaidis #345562

[Greg Amy]

...undertray and splitter definitions they TRULY belong in the GCR glossary...
"Airdam" and "undertray" are already in the GCR Technical Glossary; only "splitter" is missing. The STAC requested that our splitter definition be placed in the Technical Glossary but the CRB chose to move that into the STCS, likely to avoid any conflicts with existing regs in other classes. - GA

[mossaidis]

^ ah - thank you, my messaged will be edited.

[StephenB]

dyno info was submitted (and more was solicited) showing only ~20% gains but inconclusive to the peak, so we reran it at 25%.

there are only 2 of these running currently that I'm aware of.

so this data was from 10/10ths builds?

Stephen

PS: Dave your Car is MUCH faster than the "old" ITB. But then again ITB is now really the old ITA so I see why your upset.

[Chip42]

so this data was from 10/10ths builds?

Stephen

PS: Dave your Car is MUCH faster than the "old" ITB. But then again ITB is now really the old ITA so I see why your upset.

3 builds: 2 pre open ECU days but known to have been running APEXi EFI mods in the wiring under dash, the 3rd with a an MS2 and I know who did the work and trust that it's as close to 10/10ths motor as we are likely to see, especially since we buffered with 5% beyond what we see on the dyno. all agreed on WHP.

[StephenB]

Thanks. Are you able to share target info? Knowing the data on the crb's car would be interesting since that would give me a realistic goal to get to. I ran with his pre ecu car and it was faster than the norm back then. If not I understand.

Stephen.

[Chip42]

Thanks. Are you able to share target info? Knowing the data on the crb's car would be interesting since that would give me a realistic goal to get to. I ran with his pre ecu car and it was faster than the norm back then. If not I understand.

Stephen.

sure = 2550 classification, 25% gain, so working backwards is (2550-50(SLA))/(17*0.98) = 150 hp. assume ~127 whp target. 20% over stock is roughly what we saw, though.

[tom91ita]

... dave, we all know that prelude is effectively the same engine and should be treated the same way. write us a letter. or don't, if you are tired of seeing changes.....

Dave,

be very, very careful here. if they deem your motor as being "effectively the same engine" then you are likely to gain 100 #'s to the 2550 same as the accord. because if your motor is "the same" then we need to start with the same stock HP as the accord.

i maintain that your motor has a "similar" design. the lower CR (8.8 vs. 9.3) means that your 0.5 bump only gets you to be "effectively the same" as the accord is stock.

Chip,

i am not really that upset but i want to make sure that i am understanding the design differences in the Honda family of 1986 vintage fuel injected motors that would result in the dyno readings. you inferred at RRAX that there is good data on the 1986 crx si motor that supports the 1.3.

i am not disputing that right now since i do not have any dyno readings for a full built motor of my vintage. but as an engineer, i would like to know the design differences that give my motor so much more mojo gain per liter than the accord/prelude 2.0 L.

my issue with the dynos is that these could be manipulated if one is so inclined. both up or down. both by an engine builder or a competitor.

WOW! look at the big HP numbers i generated, pay me big $$! WOW! look at the low HP numbers i generated, i need a lower factor!

i see the similar engine design and the dyno results as both being data points that should be considered.

tom

[tom91ita]

....2 pre open ECU days but known to have been running APEXi EFI mods in the wiring under dash, .....

Chip,

i am not familar with APEXi mods in the pre ECU days.

were those acceptable per the rules of the day?

tom

[Rabbit05]

my issue with the dynos is that these could be manipulated if one is so inclined. both up or down. both by an engine builder or a competitor.

WOW! look at the big HP numbers i generated, pay me big $$! WOW! look at the low HP numbers i generated, i need a lower factor!

i see the similar engine design and the dyno results as both being data points that should be considered.




This is why I have not bothered to take the Audi to the dyno shop down the street from me....even I go spend the money to go dyno my car, and turn this info over to the powers that be . They can say ,"we dont trust your numbers , now go pound sand"...

Like what Dave said , what kind of politics are being played behind closed doors to push this through ?


I like Chris S's idea...and I was just perusing the Prod rules yesterday too...sounds like a decent alternative to go play there.

( and I am still waiting to see the "secret Audi HP info" that is not for SCCA members to see...):shrug::(

[Rabbit05]

sure = 2550 classification, 25% gain, so working backwards is (2550-50(SLA))/17 = 147 hp. assume ~125 whp target. 20% over stock is roughly what we saw, though



Chip,
So just so I am not confused, 125 hp is the number you used to get to 2550 lbs ?

-John

[Chip42]

No, 25% over oem hp. Straight math.

[tom91ita]

John,

as i understand the process (mostly from memory)

Accord would be 120 HP stock * 17 pounds per hp * 1.25 (estimated gains with IT mods) + 50 (double wishbone suspension) - 50 (Front wheel drive deduct) = 2550 #'s

with the previously "default" 1.30 factor for ITB multi-valve motors, 2652 #'s so say 2650 #'s.

i believe i was treated rather fairly when the 86 crx si was re-ran. i went from a factor of ~1.41 to 1.3 when others got the 1.3 ITB multivalve factor. the car went from 2130 to 1970. one reason i think it was fair is that the 1.41 factor was quite close to what the 16V hondas had for a factor

i am just asking questions now because the accord engine and crx engine in stock form both have specific outputs of 61.4 (120/1.955) and 61.2 HP/liter (91/1.488), respectively.

for the prelude, the comment is the motors are similar and about the same. but for my car, it is not a similar design yet the specific outputs are...

sort of like Danny Glover in Dirty Harry, "i gots to know" :)

respectfully,

tom

[Rabbit05]

No, 25% over oem hp. Straight math.


Ahhh...thank you . :023:



And thank you Tom for the detailed formula. I forgot what it was..

[Chip42]

W
Chip,

i am not familar with APEXi mods in the pre ECU days.

were those acceptable per the rules of the day?

tom
No, and I only know for a fact that one of those cars had it, and cannot say when it was added vs. When ecu rules openned up. The car in question had a stock ecu. The sister car I assume had the same setup, alas its been dead for a while now.
That does improve stock control of fuel somewhat, though, inching towards what might be seen with a real programable ecu controlling things. That the output agreed with a car running a pretty trick ms2 setup tells me fuel contol is sorted well enough for peak power determinations. Point is that, barring possible mechanical items, the cars appear close enough to peak to justify a 5% buffer.

Tom, there could be a number of differences. The objective is to consider the motors seperately, not using some sort of time/manufacturer/configuration data to make prediction, even if they are well founded. The prelude and accord have the same engine code, with some minor differences. That's a lot closer than a motor 25% smaller that simply shares some design concepts.

[Flyinglizard]

RE splitters/airdams/vortex generators
None of the above will make more than the equivalent of 10# in the car, within the IT rules of the body shadow.
The ITAC should also address the vortex generators, at the same time.
Pretty much any aircontrol with the lower edge 2in or more from the pavement, and inside of the body shadow, will have little or neg results.
The lift/downforce is made by moving air vertically. The bumper stops the upward flow on most of these IT cars. The exceptions are the Miata, MG rubber bumper, MR2.
The upward flow hits the bottom of the hood, the bumper,etc.
The only airdam with splitter that I have seen show a drag improvement , is snow plow shaped with a 3in slitter. Extended at least 6 in in front of the bumper, with provisions for the air to pass over the bumper without hitting the hood bottom. Not easily done with any of the IT rules. The ITAC is wasting it's time, as long as the rule stays inside of the body shadow.
If you can attach the air dam to the front bumper edge, than you can gain some. But the way I read the IT rules, if you can see the airdam edge from above, it is not legal . Maybe this needs some clarifying.
There is also a chance for gain by blowing the nose pressure out around the front tires. VGs and a small splitter can aid this flow. I have not seen a big drag reduction here either.

[Chip42]

mike,

pressure differentials matter. even if they do not result in downforce, you can use a splitter to enhance cooling flow through the radiator, reduce drag, etc...
they are being used because they work, NOT because they look cool. some guys SWEAR by basic air dams, too. the questions are "are they allowed" and "where can the supports be located" not "how much downforce will it generate."

[CRallo]

It says that it(whatever you happen to call it) must be attached to the body, but not ONLY the body. So where is the confusion about mounting?

And why ban limited production OEM stuff if you can make/buy custom? I never understood that.

[Flyinglizard]

I was trying to imply that the only rule needed is the shadow rule.
Mounting rules bother some cars more than others and are really not needed as long as the entire air control devices are covered by the body shadow rule.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It says that it(whatever you happen to call it) must be attached to the body, but not ONLY the body. So where is the confusion about mounting?

Agreed. So long as the mounting doesn't do something illegal, I don't get the issue.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And I am not understanding the Accord bitching. We all know how we got here and nobody has to like it - but here is the net result:

All ITB cars processed at 25%, 30% multi-valve boner gone
MR2 finally gets it's dyno data read and approved at a lower %

If the MKII VW's can make 25% over stock, they are fine. If they can't, send in the data.

[Chip42]

And I am not understanding the Accord bitching. We all know how we got here and nobody has to like it - but here is the net result:

All ITB cars processed at 25%, 30% multi-valve boner gone
MR2 finally gets it's dyno data read and approved at a lower %

If the MKII VW's can make 25% over stock, they are fine. If they can't, send in the data.

I'm pretty sure the A2s are run @ 30%, thus their gripe. I've said it a million times - data changes things, griping just makes people disinterested.

[tom91ita]

,.... The objective is to consider the motors seperately, not using some sort of time/manufacturer/configuration data to make prediction, even if they are well founded. The prelude and accord have the same engine code, with some minor differences. That's a lot closer than a motor 25% smaller that simply shares some design concepts.

understood. thanks.

[gran racing]

All ITB cars processed at 25%, 30% multi-valve boner gone

When did this happen? I received an e-mail not that long ago that my request to eliminate the 30% multi-valve was declined.


And I am not understanding the Accord bitching.

The bitching is about getting all cars given a fair shake. There's been plenty of data on the Accord. Hell, one of the CRB members (former? don't even know anymore).

Yeah Tom, the Prelude I have has 110 stock HP. The differences between them are CR as you noted, and a couple of other non-legal IT mods.

[Andy Bettencourt]

When did this happen? I received an e-mail not that long ago that my request to eliminate the 30% multi-valve was declined.

Forget where I read it, maybe the Box, but all ITB now processed at 25% with a proactive look for power numbers on anything with Multi-valve before classification or correction.


The bitching is about getting all cars given a fair shake. There's been plenty of data on the Accord. Hell, one of the CRB members (former? don't even know anymore).

So it would seem we are there. 25% on new classifications. If a car is classed at over that based on the boner, then it should get swapped back per the Ops Manual. If it's processed over that based on dyno numbers, so what?

[jjjanos]

It says that it(whatever you happen to call it) must be attached to the body, but not ONLY the body.

:018:

It says it must be attached to the body (except for those with Integrated bumper assemblies who may attach to the bumper assembly.)

9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.
So, yes, it is only to the body or the integrated bumper assembly.


So where is the confusion about mounting?:shrug: Seems perfectly clear to me.


Agreed. So long as the mounting doesn't do something illegal, I don't get the issue.

9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.
That's the issue. The GCR specifies how these are to be mounted. There is no allowance to mount them anywhere but the body. It may be a stupid restriction, but it is the rule.

[Greg Amy]

There is no allowance to mount them anywhere but the body. It may be a stupid restriction, but it is the rule.
The reason for that restriction lies in 1985, when cars has separate bumpers (prior to plastic aerodynamic bumper covers). The reason for specifying mounting them to "the body" (and limiting the attachment to below 4" above wheel centerline) was to keep competitors from mounting them to separated bumpers, thus closing out the whole front of the car. - GA

[JeffYoung]

I just don't see any real answer we could have given here other than the rule says wha it says. It is clear. Your spoiler has to fit in a defined space (witin the "shadow" of the body and in front of the wheel wells, and not above the wheel centerline).

It has to be attached to the body or if you had an integrated bumper, the bumper.

If you can make a splitter within those parameters (and you should be able to), more power to you.

I had to think hard on this one for a while when it first came in -- good letter -- but I'm convinced the above is correct and that nothing further is needed or should be rendered by the ITAC.

Dave, yes, default is now back to 25% for all cars in B multivalve or not.

Peace out brothers of Rules Nerditude.

[CRallo]

My post was a response to others. Did you read them? I ask because you might misunderstand my post if you took it out of context.

The word I highlighted, you grasped out of mid air. It is NOT in this rule. Andy understands me. In fact my very point was the absence of that word in the rule. No confusion there IMHO.

Oh and on that theme, your conclusion at the bottom is not a true statement/summary.


:018:

It says it must be attached to the body (except for those with Integrated bumper assemblies who may attach to the bumper assembly.)

9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.
So, yes, it is only to the body or the integrated bumper assembly.

:shrug: Seems perfectly clear to me.



9.1.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.
That's the issue. The GCR specifies how these are to be mounted. There is no allowance to mount them anywhere but the body. It may be a stupid restriction, but it is the rule.

[Chip42]

Chris hit the crux of the issue.

as I see it, "must be mountedto the body" can be read as follows:

1) "the air dam (splitter) must attach to the body in order to not leave openings between the allowed device and the body."
THIS was the basis for finding the moser submission illegal, so we know we can use this interpretation.

2) "the structural mounting of the airdam (or splitter) must be to the body and ONLY the body, as this is the only method specifically allowed. in fact, it is required."
THIS is the unanswered portion in the moser request. we all agree that the air dam/splitter must attach to the body, but is that mounting exclusive, or just the single mandatory component of an otherwise free system? functional under-trays and the like largely hinge on this answer.

some will read it as 1 AND 2, some only 1. I suppose there could be another interpretation but I think I captured the gist of them all above. the ITAC COULD make a "clarification" on this but as I've said, it's a pot better left unstirred. If we draw that line, we will alienate members either by making existing devices illegal or for enacting what is seen as further rules creep.

*I* read the rule to require only #1 and thus allowing splitters due to the Roffe Corollary. to me the body attachment is an aerodynamic restriction more than a structural envelope. I'm sure splitters weren't intended in 1985, but that's what I feel that the words say. were the ITAC to consider clarifying this, we may well put forth a recommendation that doesn't agree in whole or part with my *personal* interpretation. that's how committees work.

[jjjanos]

My post was a response to others. Did you read them? I ask because you might misunderstand my post if you took it out of context.


I took "It says that it(whatever you happen to call it) must be attached to the body, but not ONLY the body" to mean that you may also mount the spoiler/airdam/splitter to both the body and somewhere else where the else is not an integrated bumper assembly. Where mount is defined as attached.

If that is not what you meant, my apologies. If it is what you meant (at least for IT), then you are mistaken. Attaching the splitter anywhere else is not a permitted modification.


9.3.D ....Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein.
9.3.D.8.b ....The spoiler/air dam shall be mounted to the body
9.3.D.8.b ....On cars with integrated bumpers, the front spoiler or airdam may be attached to the bumper cover.
Whether the allowance to mount to the bumper cover gives an alternate mounting point replacing the body or an additional mounting point if the splitter is mounted to the body is unclear.


Oh and on that theme, your conclusion at the bottom is not a true statement/summary.

None-the-less, the GCR tells you where you are allowed to legally mount the item.

[Ron Earp]

I don't have GCR handy and it won't load in Chrome for some reason. What is the description of "the body" in the GCR?

[tom91ita]

"my" interpretation is that the review committee's ruling:


concluded that the spoiler is non-compliant because the spoiler/air dam is not mounted onto the body of the car, as mandated by 9.1.3.D.8.b.

was overturned by the COA for TWO reasons per:


The Court of Appeals upholds the determination of the Review Committee that the design is non-compliant; however, the basis for the non-compliance is not the attachment design, but rather the presence of the unducted openings.


The Court of Appeals finds that Mr. Moser’s appeal is well founded and his appeal fee, less the amount retained by SCCA, will be returned.

the COA specifically mentioned the attachment design is not an issue AND the appeal was "well founded."

[Chip42]

I don't have GCR handy and it won't load in Chrome for some reason. What is the description of "the body" in the GCR?


Body – All parts of the car licked by the air stream and situated above the belly / floor with exception of the roll bar or cage. For Formula and Sports Racing cars, further exceptions are those units definitely associated with the function of the engine or transmission.
-c

[Flyinglizard]

Riddle me this, If the dam can be attached to the bumper cover, how is it legal if it can be seen from above, ( shadow rule)?
Can it be flush to the bumper?( allowing air to exit over the bumper)?

I am pretty sure the intent was to not allow slotted air control, (Wings).
If the dam sees excited ,air over and under , it is now a wing.
Wings = bad road to go down. Much lift can be made with small slots.
The upper edge of the air control system should be mounted to the bodywork , sealed, without room to pass air.IMHO

If mounted to the front valence(body), with stand offs, it would still be legal, as long as the dam was covered by the shadow. A small effective wing could fit there on many cars.

If the ITAC wants to address this ,before I start building IT wings, it would be good for the group.
The rule should address Vortex Generators , splitters,and keeping the upper edge sealed to the body, and not worry about a strut going to the bumper support.
The bumper is body, in GCR talk, maybe also.

[Greg Amy]

My understanding of the process is that CoA declarations are point-in-time opinions, and are not necessarily indicative of future considerations. In other words, if the regs are not cleared up to address the concerns raised by the CoA results, then there's risk in future courts presenting a different opinion. For example, I don't see that retaining CoA findings will necessarily be sufficient evidence in defense/offense of a protest.

The easiest damn thing to do here is change the verbiage to clearly reflect the intent of the regs. I'm baffled why there's resistance to that.

GA

[ShelbyRacer]

From my standpoint, I *thought* the "mounting point" argument was the question of whether the uni-body structure (radiator support or the like) was a "body" part for the purposes of the mounting rule. This was the part of the discussion that I spoke to, so if I am missing the bigger picture here, please let me know. In my mind, the allowance for the air dam to incorporate a splitter and/or undertray is there, so long as it fits within the clearly defined envelope- the location, outer outline limits, and mounting method. What you call it or what function someone thinks it serves inside that limit may be debatable, but if it doesn't perform an unauthorized function, it's all good.

To add to Greg's point way back on page 2 (the options for "clarification")-

If you want to see the mounting changed or have other words to define it, write in. The ITAC/CRB will respond.

If you want to see the limits expanded, write in. The ITAC/CRB will respond.

I was one who argued though, that it's not our place to issue a judgement, especially one that was based on a COA action (or inaction). The request to do so was read, and we had quite a bit of discussion on it, so please don't think it was a glib response.

Again though, if I am missing the bigger picture here, tell me. In the end, I want to represent the IT community (which is larger than just this forum) and do what is best for the club.

[Chip42]

The easiest damn thing to do here is change the verbiage to clearly reflect the intent of the regs. I'm baffled why there's resistance to that.

because whatever way you slice it, people will not like the change. as it is, they appear to MOSTLY aggree to disagree and race and it's not causing a problem on track that I can identify.

I know this job is damned if you do and damned if you don't, but I for one draw a line when it comes to fixing stuff that isn't broken. I'm not in the business of taking existing rules and mucking with them to the extent that it make cars non compliant for no demonstrable purpose, nor to clarify creep for the sake of specifically legalizing one commonly held interpretation of a rule thats not causing much real issue in practice as written.

[erlrich]

Just to throw a little more fuel on the mounting point fire:


A front spoiler/air dam is permitted. It shall not protrude beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed from above perpendicular to the ground, or aft of the forward most part of the front fender opening. This body outline does not include bumpers or bumper mounts. The spoiler/air dam shall be mounted to the body, and may extend no higher than four (4) inches above the horizontal centerline of the front wheel GCR hubs. It shall not cover the normal grille opening(s) at the front of the car. Openings are permitted for the purposes of ducting air to the brakes, cooler, and radiator. Dealer installed or limited production front/rear spoilers/air dams/wings are prohibited. The spoiler shall have no support or reinforcement extending aft of the forward most part of the front fender wheel opening.Seems to me if the rule explicitly states that the spoiler shall have no support or reinforcement extending aft of the wheel opening, then it is implicitly saying that supports and/or reinforcements forward of the wheel opening are ok. :shrug:

[jjjanos]

the COA specifically mentioned the attachment design is not an issue AND the appeal was "well founded."

I read that as "We all agreed in 5 seconds that the openings were illegal and the other thing is going to take all night, so let's just declare it illegal."

[Greg Amy]

...as it is, they appear to MOSTLY aggree to disagree and race and it's not causing a problem on track that I can identify.
I disagree. In point of fact, Mosers thought it was nebulous enough to pay for the (non-)clarification, persons have expressed doubt in this very thread that their proposed parts are compliant, and I'm aware of threats up here in the northeast to protest commercially-available product.

The issue is decisively not clear. There are basically four camps:

- Group #1: Those that think it meets the letter of the regs and don't care about the spirit, and do the mods;
- Group #2: Those that think it may meet the letter of the regs but not the spirit, and might do it 'cause others do it but are concerned about that because they're afraid they'll get tossed, but understand that it could be a performance disadvantage against Group #1 to not do it;
- Group #3: Those that think it meets neither the letter nor the spirit of the regs, and are damned pissed-off at Groups 1 and 2 for being cheaters; and
- Group #4: Those that have never thought of it, and who will some day see an example and become members of Group #3, then eventually #2, then maybe #1.

So what if someone gets pissed at a clarification? People are already pissed now! We should decide what we want to allow in Improved Touring and change the regs accordingly, and the "losers" will get over it (see me and sphericals).

- GA, who used to be a member of Group #4, quickly progressed to #3 within minutes, then went to #2 after reading the regs, and is now firmly in Group #1.

[Flyinglizard]

MY lawyer's advise for rental race cars; The driver takes all responsibility..
Thats it.
The jist is that few words make for few loop holes.
VS many words = many loop holes.

[tom91ita]

I read that as "We all agreed in 5 seconds that the openings were illegal and the other thing is going to take all night, so let's just declare it illegal."

:) could be...

but if i add a dam/splitter, the best attachment points are my car are metal and not plastic bumper covers.

i will likely print a copy of the protest and appeal letter and point at that if i am protested for attachment method. "see, they said that this was not an issue" it may not be the spirit of their ruling but it could likely help sway a trackside ruling.

i want a dam/splitter very similar to the ones Mosers were running. relatively simple, well made and attached securely. the ducting/openings i would add in it will be directed to the general vicinity of my brakes....

[Chip42]

So what if someone gets pissed at a clarification? People are already pissed now! We should decide what we want to allow in Improved Touring and change the regs accordingly, and the "losers" will get over it (see me and sphericals).

they may be "pissed" now due to disagreements, but on track it's not showing as a problem from what I've seen. hell, ISC sells such a splitter and runs a beater plastic air dam on the fastest ITA miata in the world (TM).

if the rule is "clarified" to make their splitters illegal, some will get over it, and some will get out of it, and some might get STL stickers to replace the ITx ones and I'm sure that won't bother you at all.

clarified to allow splitters, and the guys who are tired of their old, legal cars (often conservatively so) might pack it in, head to prod, etc...

I don't like those options. I don't so much mind guys disagreeing on intent at the track when the net result is negligible on track. I mind it less when it's a bunch of us rules nerds on the interwebs.

[seckerich]

Just to throw a little more fuel on the mounting point fire:

Seems to me if the rule explicitly states that the spoiler shall have no support or reinforcement extending aft of the wheel opening, then it is implicitly saying that supports and/or reinforcements forward of the wheel opening are ok. :shrug:


Ding, Ding, we have a winner!!

Group #1: Those that think it meets the letter of the regs and don't care about the spirit, and do the mods;
- Group #2: Those that think it may meet the letter of the regs but not the spirit, and might do it 'cause others do it but are concerned about that because they're afraid they'll get tossed, but understand that it could be a performance disadvantage against Group #1 to not do it;
- Group #3: Those that think it meets neither the letter nor the spirit of the regs, and are damned pissed-off at Groups 1 and 2 for being cheaters; and
- Group #4: Those that have never thought of it, and who will some day see an example and become members of Group #3, then eventually #2, then maybe #1.

Lets add group 5 that sit on a forum, never race much or at all, and want to have every last minute detail of the rule book defined to their reading so it is clear.

Thanks to Chip for stating a very clear point about a few jerking with items that have been run in the classes since the 90's with no problem. Now all of a sudden they want a clearer reading to meet their version. Yes, you might now find a group in Kansas that will side with you and make all spoilers/splitters illegal unless thay are held on with duct tape to the "body" and will still not make a damn bit of difference in the end effect. They are still legal and will perform the same function regardless of mounting.

PS. the mounts to the frame on most cars are "above the floor pan and in the air stream under the car. The spoiler rule explicitely states you may direct air around and "UNDER" the car so further making a splitter legal.

[Greg Amy]

...some will get over it, and some will get out of it, and some might get STL stickers to replace the ITx ones and I'm sure that won't bother you at all...
Damn, you're right, Chip, you got me; I'm going through all this effort to contribute to try and lure more cars from Improved Touring to Super Touring.

And to think I honestly thought I was being a lot more subtle than that...

It's your show; you guys are creating, changing (or not), and interpreting (or not) the regs. If you and your constituents are happy with the way things are, more power to you.

Out.

GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Just to throw a little more fuel on the mounting point fire:

Seems to me if the rule explicitly states that the spoiler shall have no support or reinforcement extending aft of the wheel opening, then it is implicitly saying that supports and/or reinforcements forward of the wheel opening are ok. :shrug:

Agree.

[Bill Miller]

I'm pretty sure the A2s are run @ 30%, thus their gripe. I've said it a million times - data changes things, griping just makes people disinterested.

So where's the data that supported the A2's being run at 30% (and the A1's being run at 38%)? If there's no data to support applying a higher multiplier, why is the higher # being used? You said you guys chucked the default 30% multiplier for multi-valve ITB/C cars, but are going to look closer at them. Why should anything else that doesn't have supporting evidence that justifies a higher multiplier be treated any differently?

You've got a long time member of this forum, and ITB racer, that has finally had enough of the BS. You've got the guy w/ the ITB Scirocco, that had it take over a year and a half to get his letter through, and they still stuck it up his ass, w/o any supporting data. I'd say that is the kind of stuff that makes people disinterested.

[Hoof Hearted]

You've got the guy w/ the ITB Scirocco, that had it take over a year and a half to get his letter through, and they still stuck it up his ass, w/o any supporting data. I'd say that is the kind of stuff that makes people disinterested.

"That guy" is me... ...and I've moved to the Prod side in the H variety. In the CenDiv, H Prod is currently nationally strong and I'm looking forward to joining the Prod Party, right Chris? :happy204: Have you located your Lexan yet?

[Flyinglizard]

HP is filling up with VWs.
Good stuff. MM

[coreyehcx]

You guys should have this part of the website invisible to the public. This is exactly the type of ego bull shit that turns people away from SCCA.

Who submitted that STL splitter letter again? 7 months ago....

[Chip42]

So where's the data that supported the A2's being run at 30% (and the A1's being run at 38%)? If there's no data to support applying a higher multiplier, why is the higher # being used? You said you guys chucked the default 30% multiplier for multi-valve ITB/C cars, but are going to look closer at them. Why should anything else that doesn't have supporting evidence that justifies a higher multiplier be treated any differently?

You've got a long time member of this forum, and ITB racer, that has finally had enough of the BS. You've got the guy w/ the ITB Scirocco, that had it take over a year and a half to get his letter through, and they still stuck it up his ass, w/o any supporting data. I'd say that is the kind of stuff that makes people disinterested.

the "minimum" multiplier for ITB/C multivalve cars has been removed. if and when justification exists to use something higher or lower than 25%, it will be used.

re existing classifications - we can change them IF there is data substantiating them. yes, it can mean proving a negative. the idea is to NOT make it easy to change willy nilly. I don't have the data in front of me that lead to the A2 weight. it's been around a while. but if it can be proven "heavy" then I'd support the change. ditto any other car being too light or heavy for it's class. but in many cases the committee doesn't know enough about the situation of any specific car to initiate that change on our own.

I am terribly upset to hear that ANYONE is upset with the changes to date. everything we recommend is done with the intention of matching power to weight in the class using as close to actual output as we can agree on and the process formula. that's the idea behind the process, right?

re the 'rocco - timing was ITAC, we dropped the ball, simple as that. as for the weight it was given, that was a decision made by the CRB. thats how the system works sometimes. not a lot the ITAC can do about that, though we can push further with support.

[seckerich]

You guys should have this part of the website invisible to the public. This is exactly the type of ego bull shit that turns people away from SCCA.

Who submitted that STL splitter letter again? 7 months ago....

Quick reminder this is an IT site. It is also where we expect our ITAC to answer questions and discuss items of interest to the class. Please go bitch about ST on an ST site. It is good for this to be in the open and everyone see the process work.

[Bill Miller]

the "minimum" multiplier for ITB/C multivalve cars has been removed. if and when justification exists to use something higher or lower than 25%, it will be used.

re existing classifications - we can change them IF there is data substantiating them. yes, it can mean proving a negative. the idea is to NOT make it easy to change willy nilly. I don't have the data in front of me that lead to the A2 weight. it's been around a while. but if it can be proven "heavy" then I'd support the change. ditto any other car being too light or heavy for it's class. but in many cases the committee doesn't know enough about the situation of any specific car to initiate that change on our own.

I am terribly upset to hear that ANYONE is upset with the changes to date. everything we recommend is done with the intention of matching power to weight in the class using as close to actual output as we can agree on and the process formula. that's the idea behind the process, right?



The way I see it Chip, is if there isn't compelling evidence to use a number other than 25%, regardless if the car is currently classified or not, no one should have to prove that it should get the default multiplier. I thought that was the underlying principle of the ITAC ops manual. If you want to use a different number, you damned well better have data to support it. Not only that, you need a high level of confidence from the rest of the committee to support using a different number.

If a car is classed with a different multiplier, and there is no supporting data/documentation, the weight should be set at the default process weight until such time as someone can provide evidence as to why it shouldn't be.


re the 'rocco - timing was ITAC, we dropped the ball, simple as that. as for the weight it was given, that was a decision made by the CRB. thats how the system works sometimes. not a lot the ITAC can do about that, though we can push further with support.

And there's the real problem. Someone can jump through all kinds of hoops, and provide all kinds of supporting evidence, but if the CRB doesn't want it to go that way, it won't. And they don't have to give any reasons for it. Do you really think that's the right way to run this, especially after all the hard work that has been done by the ITAC to develop a transparent, objective process?

[JeffYoung]

Bill, I agree that the lack of documentation is a problem with a lot of our classing right now. Even if it exists, it is not easy to find.

Chip has greatly improved the system by adding internal notes on our electronic forum on EVERY classing decision so that this stuff should be easy to find.

I don't know anything about VWs, or the history on this particular car, but I personally would want to see data to back up the 30% that a previous ITAC had applied if someone requested a reset at the default.

On the splitter rule, can someone help me out? What exactly is the issue? The rule allows an airdam within proscribed geometric space, and attaching points. If you can construct a splitter, or hell an M1 tank, within those parameters, you are ok, no?

So what about the rule is not clear?

Seriously asking for some help; I may be missing something. Chip? Greg? Andy?

[JoshS]

And there's the real problem. Someone can jump through all kinds of hoops, and provide all kinds of supporting evidence, but if the CRB doesn't want it to go that way, it won't. And they don't have to give any reasons for it. Do you really think that's the right way to run this, especially after all the hard work that has been done by the ITAC to develop a transparent, objective process?

Yes, I agree. The ITAC Ops Manual was written with the cooperation of the CRB and yours truly thought that both the CRB and the ITAC would abide by it. If anyone wants to make their own changes to the recommended weights, then they should be considered comp adjustments ("PCAs") - you'll notice that the Ops Manual allows those - instead of trying to make up new inputs to the process. The multiplier is the multiplier. You don't back into a multiplier to get the weight you want. You use the right multiplier, and if you really can't stand the weight, then you adjust with a PCA.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I agree that the lack of documentation is a problem with a lot of our classing right now. Even if it exists, it is not easy to find.

Chip has greatly improved the system by adding internal notes on our electronic forum on EVERY classing decision so that this stuff should be easy to find.

I don't know anything about VWs, or the history on this particular car, but I personally would want to see data to back up the 30% that a previous ITAC had applied if someone requested a reset at the default.



Thanks Jeff, I appreciate that. But how do you deal w/ a case like the guy w/ the Scirocco? Letter comes in, seems pretty straight forward, yet CRB says "Nope, you get boned w/ the same 38% multiplier that your sister car got. Thanks for playing".


Yes, I agree. The ITAC Ops Manual was written with the cooperation of the CRB and yours truly thought that both the CRB and the ITAC would abide by it. If anyone wants to make their own changes to the recommended weights, then they should be considered comp adjustments ("PCAs") - you'll notice that the Ops Manual allows those - instead of trying to make up new inputs to the process. The multiplier is the multiplier. You don't back into a multiplier to get the weight you want. You use the right multiplier, and if you really can't stand the weight, then you adjust with a PCA.

I agree Josh, that's EXACTLY the way it should work. The problem is, to do it that way, someone has to actually come up w/ data to support their position.

[Chip42]

the CRB has been supportive and good to work with. they also come with a healthy amount of skepticism and do on occasion over-ride the ITAC's recommendations. that's how the system works. if they agreed with everything we recommend, they wouldn't be doing a good job as gate keepers - the committee, after all, is not infallible.

and no one is backing a number from a weight. in the case of the 'roco they just matched the A1 GTI. "fair enough". if we get a letter to re-process the pair of them, maybe we can dislodge that 38%.

and to Bill, etc... there' no one saying otherwise. there are some cars I think are "right" at higher multipliers, like the 88-91 and 92-95 civics, and I for one would want to see proof to the contrary before lightening them. others are heavy or light because they were never processed (see Geo Storm GSi) or there's data out there - anything processed off of 25% should have been done on data or VERY STRONG evidence. that exists, but the historic record isn't the easiest thing to search sometimes. we depend on our forum as well as this one and older members, previous members, and the CRB's memories sometimes to find the pointers to it.

[JoshS]

and no one is backing a number from a weight. in the case of the 'roco they just matched the A1 GTI. "fair enough". if we get a letter to re-process the pair of them, maybe we can dislodge that 38%.

Sure they are. In fact, YOU just did. You say it's 38%. I say it's 25% plus a PCA.

[Chip42]

Sure they are. In fact, YOU just did. You say it's 38%. I say it's 25% plus a PCA.

I was quoting bill.

that wasn't done using any process, so it wasn't backing a gain out of a weight, it was simply MATCHING an existing weight. run the math backwards, and you can see what the effective gain number is, sure, but that's not how it worked in practice.

[ShelbyRacer]

Yes, I agree. The ITAC Ops Manual was written with the cooperation of the CRB and yours truly thought that both the CRB and the ITAC would abide by it. If anyone wants to make their own changes to the recommended weights, then they should be considered comp adjustments ("PCAs") - you'll notice that the Ops Manual allows those - instead of trying to make up new inputs to the process. The multiplier is the multiplier. You don't back into a multiplier to get the weight you want. You use the right multiplier, and if you really can't stand the weight, then you adjust with a PCA.

Josh,

So, what you are saying is, everything gets processed at 25% (since the 30% multivalve ITB/ITC default is gone), period. If a car appears to be performing outside expectations for the class, ANY change is done via a PCA, and NOT by reexamining the multiplier?

That's not necessarily how I read things in the Ops Manual. Specifically, the Ops Manual says the following about PCAs: "It is the goal of the rules to allow for this possibility but with the sincere hope that it will never be necessary."

Is it not better to center a discussion on "why a different multiplier would be necessary" and have debates/discussions about that, than to focus more on the "how much weight to we need to slow down this fast car?" If discussions rely on technical data analysis of the potential (and realization) of a particular engine combination, it would seem to me to be a better way than something that would be seen as REWARDS weight and the like. It appeared to me that non-standard multipliers were possible to address such as situation from an "error in the process for this combination" standpoint, rather than a Competition Adjustment relying on an arbitrary amount of weight.

[coreyehcx]

Quick reminder this is an IT site. It is also where we expect our ITAC to answer questions and discuss items of interest to the class. Please go bitch about ST on an ST site. It is good for this to be in the open and everyone see the process work.

Ah post 5 and 6 in this thread were about what I was referring to, but thanks for being a dick.

It NOT a good thing that public unregistered people looking to get into SCCA see how it works on this site. The last time I checked, this inst just an IT forum. There are several conversations/threads about ST, but thanks again for making SCCA look like a bunch of assholes its perceived to be. I see how well this all works....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Josh,

So, what you are saying is, everything gets processed at 25% (since the 30% multivalve ITB/ITC default is gone), period. If a car appears to be performing outside expectations for the class, ANY change is done via a PCA, and NOT by reexamining the multiplier?



I think the point is that because everything is processed using an expected gain of 25%, ANY change to the multiplier using information gathered by the ITAC is in actuality a PCA.

If a car were to start breaking records all over the country and the ITAC could find zero evidence that something in the Process was 'wrong', I would not expect them to make a recommendation for a change.

[seckerich]

Ah post 5 and 6 in this thread were about what I was referring to, but thanks for being a dick.

It NOT a good thing that public unregistered people looking to get into SCCA see how it works on this site. The last time I checked, this inst just an IT forum. There are several conversations/threads about ST, but thanks again for making SCCA look like a bunch of assholes its perceived to be. I see how well this all works....

Glad I could help, I can be a dick when needed. You were pointing out the ITAC should be ashamed for the delay in a STL splitter letter, Correct?

[Chip42]

:happy204: steve owes me a keyboard.

corey's point, if I follow correctly, is that the open discussions like this, where rules are picked apart, processes are discussed, etc... are a turn off to "I just wanna go fast" types, which would be most "new members". thus he feels these discussions to be a turnoff to new or potentially new members.

he may have a point, too. but the fact that the whole thing is out in the open and that some individuals invovled in these decissions from the varous boards and committees participate in them (as opposed to simply pronouncing their oppinions and walking away) is overall good for the comunity, sport, and club. hopefully, the end result is that people who prefer W2W over track day or TT type events will be less fed up long term here (SCCA) than in the NASA mold.

as for the guys who find it a turnoff, I think it's generational. not much you can do there.

I think the STL splitter thing was aimed at tGA. Corey knows the distinction of ITAC/STAC

[Greg Amy]

:happy204: steve owes me a keyboard.
;)

If you don't want to deal with the rules silliness, then either tune out the "Rules & Regs" sub-forum (where we talk in depth about, strangely enough, rules and regulations) or spend your time at sccaforums.com.


I think the STL splitter thing was aimed at tGA. Corey knows the distinction of ITAC/STAC
Yup, that's how I read it, too. But I already 'splained to him why he was low-priority-man on the 2012 totem pole; apparently that wasn't acceptable (even though he ultimately got what he was asking for, and at the absolute soonest time he could possibly have...)

GA

[S2_ITBVW]

IT is the entry point for the SCCA. Yeah, there are a bunch of really knowledgeable folks participating, but I ain’t one of them. I’m getting there, but it’s going to take more than the two years I currently have under my belt. I have been told that my A2 VW Jetta is classed “differently” than other cars because smart people on the Comp Board think it can realize a 30% gain. Not trusting my own expertise, I’ve talked to all the experienced A2 VW guys I know and none of them are achieving 30%. Nonetheless, the last two years I have done 99% of the things I am supposed to do to make my car fast. The things that are left to do are things that many would argue won’t make a difference anyway (e.g., I need to install a crank scraper). I am far from being a good VW tuner, so I don’t trust my dyno numbers to be the best, but I do NOT have a 30% gain. So, I do have dyno data that I can provide for this discussion. But, I’m a freakin’ Psychologist that is just figuring this stuff out, so I just don’t think my results will (or should) carry that much weight.

Here’s my real concern . . . this class is supposed to be for folks like me. I shouldn’t have to be an automotive engineer to make the case for my car to be classed properly. The BURDEN should be on the experienced EXPERTS that are running the show. If there isn’t documented evidence that is clearly communicated to justify my car being processed in a manner that deviates from the established standards, then my car SHOULD be processed according to those established standards. When someone inquires about a deviation from standard processing, there should be a record of why the car is being treated differently. The established process should prevail unless there is EXPLICIT justification to do otherwise. The BURDEN should not be on an entry level participant to refute “mysterious rules anomalies.”

When I am told that the justification for the “atypical” processing of my car is lost in antiquity, and that it is my responsibility as an entry level racer to prove that this atypical processing is wrong . . . well, that’s just crazy. Suffice it to say that I feel like am not only fighting an uphill battle, but I’m fighting a battle that I should not even be asked to fight in the first place.

So, I too am done with IT. To put it bluntly, my car is competitive in HP, so I am moving on. I hope, however, that you will consider the opinions of someone who is supposed to “fit” in Improved Touring. FWIW, I don’t think there is anything wrong with just “wanting to go fast” in a fair, competitive, safe and relatively “hassle free” race environment. That, quite frankly, describes exactly what I am looking for.

[jjjanos]

On the splitter rule, can someone help me out? What exactly is the issue? The rule allows an airdam within proscribed geometric space, and attaching points. If you can construct a splitter, or hell an M1 tank, within those parameters, you are ok, no?

:wacko:. Incorrect. Loading of depleted uranium sabots in the car would violate the ballast rule. The M1 tank is out.

[jjjanos]

and to Bill, etc... there' no one saying otherwise. there are some cars I think are "right" at higher multipliers, like the 88-91 and 92-95 civics, and I for one would want to see proof to the contrary before lightening them.

Ummmm.... something,something... just like the old system of pulling numbers out of thin air.

"The Process" is suppose to prevent "I think this car needs more weight."

[Greg Amy]

On the splitter rule, can someone help me out? What exactly is the issue? The rule allows an airdam within proscribed geometric space, and attaching points. If you can construct a splitter, or hell an M1 tank, within those parameters, you are ok, no?
No.

A "splitter" is not an airdam or a spoiler. Neither is an undertray. IIDSYCTYC.

However, they are "technically" compliant because of the Roffe Corollary, but the implication - because they are not explicitly allowed - is that splitters and undertrays are not within the spirit/philosophy of the regs. Thus, intorturation, in violation of the GCR.

However, if the intent is to allow, why not explicitly allow? It clarifies it for everyone, not just us rules nerds.

GA

[seckerich]

So, I too am done with IT. To put it bluntly, my car is competitive in HP, so I am moving on. I hope, however, that you will consider the opinions of someone who is supposed to “fit” in Improved Touring. FWIW, I don’t think there is anything wrong with just “wanting to go fast” in a fair, competitive, safe and relatively “hassle free” race environment. That, quite frankly, describes exactly what I am looking for.[/QUOTE]



Dave it is a sad situation on the VW and to some extent the Volvo front. Some of the "known" values ingrained in some of the CRB are from cheated up cars to be blunt. Some of these became the benchmark and as rules got better and methods of checking cams, etc got better these cars got legal or went away. Now you get screwed to some extent for past practices. It will take some work, but you have a very open minded ITAC right now willing to try.

[JeffYoung]

IT is the entry point for the SCCA. Yeah, there are a bunch of really knowledgeable folks participating, but I ain’t one of them. I’m getting there, but it’s going to take more than the two years I currently have under my belt. I have been told that my A2 VW Jetta is classed “differently” than other cars because smart people on the Comp Board think it can realize a 30% gain. Not trusting my own expertise, I’ve talked to all the experienced A2 VW guys I know and none of them are achieving 30%. Nonetheless, the last two years I have done 99% of the things I am supposed to do to make my car fast. The things that are left to do are things that many would argue won’t make a difference anyway (e.g., I need to install a crank scraper). I am far from being a good VW tuner, so I don’t trust my dyno numbers to be the best, but I do NOT have a 30% gain. So, I do have dyno data that I can provide for this discussion. But, I’m a freakin’ Psychologist that is just figuring this stuff out, so I just don’t think my results will (or should) carry that much weight.

Here’s my real concern . . . this class is supposed to be for folks like me. I shouldn’t have to be an automotive engineer to make the case for my car to be classed properly. The BURDEN should be on the experienced EXPERTS that are running the show. If there isn’t documented evidence that is clearly communicated to justify my car being processed in a manner that deviates from the established standards, then my car SHOULD be processed according to those established standards. When someone inquires about a deviation from standard processing, there should be a record of why the car is being treated differently. The established process should prevail unless there is EXPLICIT justification to do otherwise. The BURDEN should not be on an entry level participant to refute “mysterious rules anomalies.”

When I am told that the justification for the “atypical” processing of my car is lost in antiquity, and that it is my responsibility as an entry level racer to prove that this atypical processing is wrong . . . well, that’s just crazy. Suffice it to say that I feel like am not only fighting an uphill battle, but I’m fighting a battle that I should not even be asked to fight in the first place.

So, I too am done with IT. To put it bluntly, my car is competitive in HP, so I am moving on. I hope, however, that you will consider the opinions of someone who is supposed to “fit” in Improved Touring. FWIW, I don’t think there is anything wrong with just “wanting to go fast” in a fair, competitive, safe and relatively “hassle free” race environment. That, quite frankly, describes exactly what I am looking for.

Thanks for the post- it is always good to get the perspective of new folks in IT.

I'm sorry you are leaving after only 2 years. While I do understand your frustration with the system, I can say this: at 2 years in, you should have a lot more on your driver/development/tuning plate than worrying about 5 or 10 hp. You are just starting out on the driver's learning curve, and on how to develop your program overall to be competitive.

If the ITB fields in your area are competitive, running up front in just two years in a sorta oddball car is probably not a realistic goal.

But I can assure you of this. We on the ITAC understand there are some issues in ITB right now arising from the now-old 30% rule. While I think your position that the ITAC needs to be experts on 300+ cars, rather than the procedure for classing them, is unrealistic, I do agree with you on this: our documentation and records on why certain cars got 30% and others did not is suspect.

So instead of taking your ball elsewhere, why not help us out? I know nothing about A2 Jettas or what they may make in IT trim. Send a letter and your dyno sheet and I can assure you it will be discussed at length.

[JeffYoung]

No.

A "splitter" is not an airdam or a spoiler. Neither is an undertray. IIDSYCTYC.

However, they are "technically" compliant because of the Roffe Corollary, but the implication - because they are not explicitly allowed - is that splitters and undertrays are not within the spirit/philosophy of the regs. Thus, intorturation, in violation of the GCR.

However, if the intent is to allow, why not explicitly allow? It clarifies it for everyone, not just us rules nerds.

GA

THanks, that helps Greg.

However, not sure I fully agree. We "allow" a number of things via the Roffe Corollary that are not expressly called out in the rules. Hoses for brake ducts, heat shields attached to "free" items, etc.

I'm not sure how adding this wording helps, although I'm not sure I see a down side either.

[Chip42]

To Dave E. That was a damn good post with damn good arguments. Thank you.

No intention to disrespect those who "just wanna go fast," only to distinguish them from rules nerds and the like. The club absolutely must appeal to that group as much as is possible. Particularly the subset of it that, like you, are intelligent professionals who share our passion for ra cing but no background with the tech.

Unfortunately, the burden of proof springs from politics and from the fact that there are outfits out there that are basically pro teams that can push all the buttons and make power others didn't. So we have to treat all cars as if they were built by those groups. Still, Your point about substantiating data for the current classification is spot on. We are working on making that data to be more easily searchable as history. We will look into the A2. I'm sorry to see you leave IT.

[Spinnetti]

I'm almost speechless. Waiting for official Fastrack.
:eclipsee_steering:

I don't get it... why not the Corolla too? MR2 is a more modern design than the live axle corolla.... if it gets the drop too, maybe I'll come back to IT, as my Corolla is just sitting in the garage at this point while I run Lemons instead...

[erlrich]

After reading the last page or so of threads, it just occurred to me; what the SCCA really needs is a SS class for older cars (I know, I know...OMG not another class). I'm guessing that's kinda what IT was intended to be in the beginning. I would be all over something like that.

[JeffYoung]

After reading the last page or so of threads, it just occurred to me; what the SCCA really needs is a SS class for older cars (I know, I know...OMG not another class). I'm guessing that's kinda what IT was intended to be in the beginning. I would be all over something like that.

Thta's exactly what it was intended to be.

Corolla: write the letter and we'll recommend dropping the weight.

[mossaidis]

After reading the last page or so of threads, it just occurred to me; what the SCCA really needs is a SS class for older cars (I know, I know...OMG not another class). I'm guessing that's kinda what IT was intended to be in the beginning. I would be all over something like that.

That's exactly what IT is designed for... along with classing newer but older than 5 year old cars, which i think makes the ITAC job that much more demanding and granted, IT that much better. :)

PS. Keep the airdam/splitter opinions coming. We're definitely honing in on the issue.

[Flyinglizard]

See my post under the VW weight.
I still do not run IT becuase of the VW weights. The A 1 was way heavy from the start and got lowered after we started running it in HP. But the only engine change for this particular engine is the cam. It makes spec every where else. for IT.
I have two exact replica HT, 10/1 engines , as I build them all the same.
38% was derived form the early cheaty ass cars.

I would be happy to dyno these two engines. I expect them to make 120+-2 whp@ 6000rpm, with the legal cams (1985 GTI # 020() or the RD cam .



RE airdams. Must be attached to the body, does not preclude more attachments, IMHO
The very small area under the bumper does not allow any real advantage.

[mossaidis]

RE airdams. Must be attached to the body, does not preclude more attachments, IMHO
The very small area under the bumper does not allow any real advantage.

I disagree as it will vary from car to car. I notice the difference between the airdam and an airdam/splitter setup. With my old splitter setup, we had ~2" plane on splitter at vehicle center-line while still within the "nothing visible from above" rule. Tires also last much longer too as the car is planted through the corners.

[coreyehcx]

;)

If you don't want to deal with the rules silliness, then either tune out the "Rules & Regs" sub-forum (where we talk in depth about, strangely enough, rules and regulations) or spend your time at sccaforums.com.


Yup, that's how I read it, too. But I already 'splained to him why he was low-priority-man on the 2012 totem pole; apparently that wasn't acceptable (even though he ultimately got what he was asking for, and at the absolute soonest time he could possibly have...)

GA

Chip was right with most of what he said.


I was not calling you out on the time frame, you explained it to me as you stated. You didn't tell me I was low on the totem pole though. I was just stating it. Do I think some type of reply back on it like "hey we need some time we are looking at it" is better than no response until now? Yes. I'm glad it will be added for next year.


I follow what you guys talk about on here because I'm running ITB in 2013. It's frustrating to see so many others upset and moving to other classes. It makes me wonder why I'm going to get involved in IT.

The only reason I will is because of Chip and the rest of the local guys I run with...without them no way in hell after seeing all the shit in this forum.

[JeffYoung]

It's far worse (or was) in Prod.

We have had a lot of changes here in IT in the last 5-7 years. One of my goals is to slow that down and get us back to the stability we had for 20 years -- but with the improved Process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's far worse (or was) in Prod.

We have had a lot of changes here in IT in the last 5-7 years. One of my goals is to slow that down and get us back to the stability we had for 20 years -- but with the improved Process.

And that can only happen if the CRB lets you do what is needed in a big chunk instead of pecking away at it.

[JeffYoung]

And that can only happen if the CRB lets you do what is needed in a big chunk instead of pecking away at it.

I'm beginning to realize that is probably correct. This fixing piecemeal is like death by a thousand cuts.

[shwah]

I sent a letter to review the A2 4 or 5 years ago. 18 months later it was given no change. I later learned that an 11 pound reduction was recommended....really.

I have been engineering and crewing with Runoffs podium HP, GP and FP cars over the same time that I have been racing my ITB car. The Prod classes were upset with the elimination of GP, but have been similarly or more stable on the rules side over the past 5 years as IT. At least there when something is gotten wrong, they are allowed/willing to fix it.

[JoshS]

I was quoting bill.

that wasn't done using any process, so it wasn't backing a gain out of a weight, it was simply MATCHING an existing weight. run the math backwards, and you can see what the effective gain number is, sure, but that's not how it worked in practice.

Andy summarized it well, but let me put my meaning another way.

When you say it has a 38% multiplier, you are basically saying that someone (on the CRB in this case) believes that the car makes 38% more than stock HP in IT trim. But I doubt that's the truth. I suspect it has the weight it has because someone thinks competition will be more even because of that weight, without doing any analysis to determine if the high weight is required because of horsepower or some other factor. If the additional weight above process weight isn't due to expected horsepower, then it's a PCA.

In either case, I'd say the bar has not been met to assess the higher-than-25%-process weight. The process requires a confidence vote on horsepower multiplier, or it requires the explicit assessment of a PCA. And as I said in my first post on this topic, at the time that we got this document approved, I thought that the both the ITAC and the CRB would follow this process.

[S2_ITBVW]

I really, really appreciate everything that the ITAC does. You guys have been responsive to me, and I have no axe to grind with the current members. I have been laboring over this decision for months. I personally have little interest in just motoring around. I want the opportunity to win. I want the opportunity to go to a championship caliber event and be competitive. To achieve this, I am willing to invest time and money to develop both the car and myself. But, I can’t afford to make this investment in a program that will ultimately still not be competitive. Frankly, I do think I can be a decent driver. I have been on track with some of the faster guys in ITB and have held my own. I have a long way to go as a driver, but I think I have the potential to run up front. The folks I race with keep telling me to sell the VW and buy an “easy button” solution like the Honda Civic or A3 VW. But, after investing way too much money in my current car, the fact is I can’t afford to switch. Moreover, I have grown fond of my good ‘ol Jetta. So, I am trying to judge where I can be MOST competitive using the car I own (i.e., the equipment that I have both already invested in, and that I already have experience prepping and driving). All things considered, I simply believe that the A2 VW has a better chance of being truly competitive in HP. At this point I feel like staying in ITB would be throwing good money after bad. It’s a judgment call, but I think I’m right.

Not stomping off in a snit, just thoughtfully walking away . . .

[Bill Miller]

I was quoting bill.

that wasn't done using any process, so it wasn't backing a gain out of a weight, it was simply MATCHING an existing weight. run the math backwards, and you can see what the effective gain number is, sure, but that's not how it worked in practice.

So tell us exactly how it was done Chip. Matching a BS existing weight is still BS. As Josh has pointed out, unless there's an explicit PCA, then it's a 38% multiplier.


Thanks for the post- it is always good to get the perspective of new folks in IT.

I'm sorry you are leaving after only 2 years. While I do understand your frustration with the system, I can say this: at 2 years in, you should have a lot more on your driver/development/tuning plate than worrying about 5 or 10 hp. You are just starting out on the driver's learning curve, and on how to develop your program overall to be competitive.

If the ITB fields in your area are competitive, running up front in just two years in a sorta oddball car is probably not a realistic goal.

But I can assure you of this. We on the ITAC understand there are some issues in ITB right now arising from the now-old 30% rule. While I think your position that the ITAC needs to be experts on 300+ cars, rather than the procedure for classing them, is unrealistic, I do agree with you on this: our documentation and records on why certain cars got 30% and others did not is suspect.

So instead of taking your ball elsewhere, why not help us out? I know nothing about A2 Jettas or what they may make in IT trim. Send a letter and your dyno sheet and I can assure you it will be discussed at length.

First off Jeff, it's not an 'odd ball' car. A2 VW's have been run in ITB for years. Yes, the GTI is the more popular version, but I think that's probably due more to the 'cool' factor than anything else. I've talked to several people, and they think that at equivalent weight, the Jetta is the better option, due to better balance. Problem was, the Jetta carried more weight for years, w/o any justification, which is probably why you didn't see more of them.

And really? Send in dyno sheets, etc. just so they can be shit on by the CRB, AGAIN?




To Dave E. That was a damn good post with damn good arguments. Thank you.

No intention to disrespect those who "just wanna go fast," only to distinguish them from rules nerds and the like. The club absolutely must appeal to that group as much as is possible. Particularly the subset of it that, like you, are intelligent professionals who share our passion for ra cing but no background with the tech.

Unfortunately, the burden of proof springs from politics and from the fact that there are outfits out there that are basically pro teams that can push all the buttons and make power others didn't. So we have to treat all cars as if they were built by those groups. Still, Your point about substantiating data for the current classification is spot on. We are working on making that data to be more easily searchable as history. We will look into the A2. I'm sorry to see you leave IT.

Chip,

Not for nothing, but I've been making essentially those same arguments for years now. And your comment about 'pro' teams, etc. are disingenuous at best. So only the VW 'pro' teams can make more than 25%? Really? Please don't insult Dave's (or anyone else's for that matter) intelligence.


Andy summarized it well, but let me put my meaning another way.

When you say it has a 38% multiplier, you are basically saying that someone (on the CRB in this case) believes that the car makes 38% more than stock HP in IT trim. But I doubt that's the truth. I suspect it has the weight it has because someone thinks competition will be more even because of that weight, without doing any analysis to determine if the high weight is required because of horsepower or some other factor. If the additional weight above process weight isn't due to expected horsepower, then it's a PCA.

In either case, I'd say the bar has not been met to assess the higher-than-25%-process weight. The process requires a confidence vote on horsepower multiplier, or it requires the explicit assessment of a PCA. And as I said in my first post on this topic, at the time that we got this document approved, I thought that the both the ITAC and the CRB would follow this process.

Josh, the problem w/ that is that if it was really a PCA, that would require someone to provide data, and actually put their name on why it was getting a PCA. Nobody wants that kind of notoriety or accountability.


I really, really appreciate everything that the ITAC does. You guys have been responsive to me, and I have no axe to grind with the current members. I have been laboring over this decision for months. I personally have little interest in just motoring around. I want the opportunity to win. I want the opportunity to go to a championship caliber event and be competitive. To achieve this, I am willing to invest time and money to develop both the car and myself. But, I can’t afford to make this investment in a program that will ultimately still not be competitive. Frankly, I do think I can be a decent driver. I have been on track with some of the faster guys in ITB and have held my own. I have a long way to go as a driver, but I think I have the potential to run up front. The folks I race with keep telling me to sell the VW and buy an “easy button” solution like the Honda Civic or A3 VW. But, after investing way too much money in my current car, the fact is I can’t afford to switch. Moreover, I have grown fond of my good ‘ol Jetta. So, I am trying to judge where I can be MOST competitive using the car I own (i.e., the equipment that I have both already invested in, and that I already have experience prepping and driving). All things considered, I simply believe that the A2 VW has a better chance of being truly competitive in HP. At this point I feel like staying in ITB would be throwing good money after bad. It’s a judgment call, but I think I’m right.

Not stomping off in a snit, just thoughtfully walking away . . .

Dave,

Nobody thinks you're stomping off in a snit. Your just one more, in a long line, of VW IT drivers that has gotten the short end of the stick, and has finally had enough.

So there you have it Chip, three ITB VW guys, in one thread, have decided to pack it in w/ IT, and go Prod racing, because they feel the IT system has failed them. Give it a long, objective look, can you blame them?

There's no reason that the CRB shouldn't have to sign their name to a deviation from the process. Don't think for a moment that they wouldn't take you to task if you tried to slide a deviation through on them w/ no supporting evidence or justification.

[JeffYoung]

I really, really appreciate everything that the ITAC does. You guys have been responsive to me, and I have no axe to grind with the current members. I have been laboring over this decision for months. I personally have little interest in just motoring around. I want the opportunity to win. I want the opportunity to go to a championship caliber event and be competitive. To achieve this, I am willing to invest time and money to develop both the car and myself. But, I can’t afford to make this investment in a program that will ultimately still not be competitive. Frankly, I do think I can be a decent driver. I have been on track with some of the faster guys in ITB and have held my own. I have a long way to go as a driver, but I think I have the potential to run up front. The folks I race with keep telling me to sell the VW and buy an “easy button” solution like the Honda Civic or A3 VW. But, after investing way too much money in my current car, the fact is I can’t afford to switch. Moreover, I have grown fond of my good ‘ol Jetta. So, I am trying to judge where I can be MOST competitive using the car I own (i.e., the equipment that I have both already invested in, and that I already have experience prepping and driving). All things considered, I simply believe that the A2 VW has a better chance of being truly competitive in HP. At this point I feel like staying in ITB would be throwing good money after bad. It’s a judgment call, but I think I’m right.

Not stomping off in a snit, just thoughtfully walking away . . .

Not trying to convince you one way or another...well, slightly....but I'm in a car no one thought could win in ITS, and I've got a bucket of race wins and a regional championship after a ten year development curve for driver and car.

You are in something of an oddball. You may think the move to prod is the easy button because you can change more stuff, but I do think it is a mistake to think that it will fix the perceived competitiveness issues with your car.

EDIT: And yes Bill, dyno sheets always help. They help us make our case. They helped tremendously overcome some perceptions with the MR2 that ultimately did not appear to be based in reality. Right now, there are no real VW experts on the ITAC. If you guys want changes made, take a look at the effort put forth by the MR2 guys. Engineering diagrams, papers, dyno sheets....

[Bill Miller]

Not trying to convince you one way or another...well, slightly....but I'm in a car no one thought could win in ITS, and I've got a bucket of race wins and a regional championship after a ten year development curve for driver and car.

You are in something of an oddball. You may think the move to prod is the easy button because you can change more stuff, but I do think it is a mistake to think that it will fix the perceived competitiveness issues with your car.

EDIT: And yes Bill, dyno sheets always help. They help us make our case. They helped tremendously overcome some perceptions with the MR2 that ultimately did not appear to be based in reality. Right now, there are no real VW experts on the ITAC. If you guys want changes made, take a look at the effort put forth by the MR2 guys. Engineering diagrams, papers, dyno sheets....

Well there you go Jeff, you've got a VW guy on the CRB. Ask Chris Albin if he's got dyno sheets that show that his ITB A2 Golf got a 30% gain.

And once again, Dave's car is far from an 'oddball'. It's a sedan version instead of a hatchback, but other than that, everything under the bodywork is the same.

[JeffYoung]

But that's the problem. I know NOTHING about these cars.

Give me some ammo to show Chris and I will. Chris is an honest guy; if he says to me a VW, which he knows well, is likely to make some amount of power, I tend to believe him. Unless I have data to the contrary.

[shwah]

The A2 Golf and Jetta are identical in IT terms. They were one of the cars that the class was targeted to match when the process was created.

Regardless of where any hp information may have come from in the pre Process IT world you cannot expect it to be comparable to any data shared today. All embellishment will be in the opposite direction.

I have two issues. The A2 was not treated fairly by the process, and there are recent additions to the class (which I lobbied for myself) that had significant weight taken off them after they had appeared competitive, even with not fully developed cars.

I am not willing to wait the years it will take to get this sorted out, and don't expect it will, beyond the performance envelope of the class changing away from what it was in recent years. In the long run maybe it is fair somehow. VWs had a good run in B, now the Hondas and Toyotas will. I would not say I am upset at this, just done.

I rolled the extra shell into the shop and started making forms for fenders. I should have molds for Golf and Jetta coupe by summer, and look forward to cleaning up the ratty wiring on my car over the winter.

[Chip42]

So there you have it Chip, three ITB VW guys, in one thread, have decided to pack it in w/ IT, and go Prod racing, because they feel the IT system has failed them. Give it a long, objective look, can you blame them?

There's no reason that the CRB shouldn't have to sign their name to a deviation from the process. Don't think for a moment that they wouldn't take you to task if you tried to slide a deviation through on them w/ no supporting evidence or justification.

and again, Bill, We're all trying to get things run through the process correctly and honestly, but it would be very helpful to get input from the VW crowd to make the case. You will find nothing but honest brokers on the ITAC. we all get it. we know a weight that is not process derived or derived but without substantiating data we can point to to back it up is not acceptable to the membership. we are working on it. why don't you encourage people to help instead of chastising me and the other people spending their free time trying to help make IT better for everyone?

The CRB is not against us making changes, either, but they do have a few more criteria at times than the process alone. Like it or not, that's their prerogative and hollering at the ITAC cannot and will not fix it. Just being open on this and other fora is something that at times puts us at odds with some members of the SCCA Boards. but we do it because we think this dialog is useful and believe that membership deserves the respect of having it.

further, if breaking a car out of a rut requires data in the minds of a committee or board member, EVEN TO REACH 25%, then, unfortunately, that's the deal. There has not been a change to the A2 recommended, so I can't say that this is one, but having data ALWAYS helps. FWIW, the data I have collected in my research points to a number above 25%, so I'd personally like some more input on it.

[Chip42]

The A2 Golf and Jetta are identical in IT terms. They were one of the cars that the class was targeted to match when the process was created.

Regardless of where any hp information may have come from in the pre Process IT world you cannot expect it to be comparable to any data shared today. All embellishment will be in the opposite direction.

I have two issues. The A2 was not treated fairly by the process, and there are recent additions to the class (which I lobbied for myself) that had significant weight taken off them after they had appeared competitive, even with not fully developed cars.

I am not willing to wait the years it will take to get this sorted out, and don't expect it will, beyond the performance envelope of the class changing away from what it was in recent years. In the long run maybe it is fair somehow. VWs had a good run in B, now the Hondas and Toyotas will. I would not say I am upset at this, just done.

Chris, can you state a whp number you think is a fair, real, expectation for the A2? 108, 110, 113, 118? more? less? like I said above, I have JUST STARTED to collect data but I'm seeing numbers over the 111 or so we would expect at 25% gain so despite NOT having the data we should to be able to say "this car should be 30%," I have enough to tell me 25% MIGHT be low. I'm personally trying to find out, but I'd love some help. so far all I've seen and found in the forum is complaints, not even one mention of a peak figure. I'm sympathetic to the complaints - I hate to see people feel their cars were obsoleted overnight by poor rulesmaking. but I think the pictur eis largely a bit different than most of those letters propose.

FWIW, I agree that an A2 as well driven and prepped as yours is reported to be should be a fair match for the hondas and toyotas even as recently reclassified, and to the 2002, A3, and anything else in the ITB listings because they should all be close based on the process. help us get your car right - even if you do decide to leave, it would be appreciated.

[gran racing]

thus he feels these discussions to be a turnoff to new or potentially new members.

I can appreciate this, yet at the same time I much prefer it to be in the open. Several years ago pretty much all ITAC discussion was behind closed doors and a total mystery. At least now we can actually have public conversations and get responses. Even if we don't agree, it's great that this communication happens.


But, after investing way too much money in my current car, the fact is I can’t afford to switch.


That's something many of us tell ourselves. I know that I said it years ago. Then I kept dumping more and more money, time developing, then more money. Crank scrapers, different headers, exhausts, suspension changes, engine builds, tuning, an so on. It's an emotional decision in the end if you truly plan on building the car to be front running capable in a strong field. There are multiple cars available for sale which would save someone suchs as yourself a TON of money and headaches. Assuming you continue building your car and truly develop it well, in a few years you'll look back shocked with how much money you spent.

As far as recent ongoings, what I find confusing and frustrating is how some of the decisions have waivered. Awesome, the silly ITB multivalve default is gone. It's great we got there yet I don't really get it. The response that I received with my request to have it eliminated was no; it was to remain as a policy. A few months later that somehow is changed? Why wasn't it changed when the previous request was made not long before? To an outsider, some of these changes to and from then back are confusing.

[Chip42]

dave, without dredging up conversations from the committee and CRB, this is the result of having the conversaations about some key cars that prove the rule wrong. "get rid of the rule" wasn't sufficient to aleviate the fears of the PTB. but data eventually was.

the real conversation went more like this (very much a charicature) "fix this car" "it's correct to the rule." "it doesn't fit though, why not?" "because the rule is based on fear not facts, look at these cars, they're all wrong too. here's data" "oh. I see. OK, fix the rule"

[Flyinglizard]

The " FL." built A 2 cars( mid 90s build) will make 118. (With too much compression and too much cam).

A legal spec -compression/cam/deck, VW HT engine is about 6-10 less.

Many of these cars are going around again, in new owners hands. Much more legal than the first time, resulting in lap time 3-4 sec slower @ Sebring. 2:46 - 2:48, where before they went 2:43 - 2:45.
The track is also 1-2 sec slower today than in 2002. FWIW.

[coreyehcx]

I can appreciate this, yet at the same time I much prefer it to be in the open. Several years ago pretty much all ITAC discussion was behind closed doors and a total mystery. At least now we can actually have public conversations and get responses. Even if we don't agree, it's great that this communication happens.



I think maybe you guys missed what I meant. When I say public, I mean having the threads show up to non-registered members. If you register for the site you can see the section and obviously have the desire to find out more about IT rules, and that's a good thing.

[Knestis]

Well there you go Jeff, you've got a VW guy on the CRB. Ask Chris Albin if he's got dyno sheets that show that his ITB A2 Golf got a 30% gain.

And once again, Dave's car is far from an 'oddball'. It's a sedan version instead of a hatchback, but other than that, everything under the bodywork is the same.

I'm getting old so my memory is increasingly suspect, but as I recall Chris was on the call when we did the "confidence" call on the question of whether to apply the standard multiplier or something different. He argued that 30% gain was achievable as I recall, which factored into others' sufficiently high levels of confidence.

Others were there - Josh, Jeff, Jake, Andy - am I confused?

A huge part of ongoing problems is the lack of documentation. During my time on the ITAC we tried to improve that and made some progress. In this day and age, with the systems we have in place, there's really no good argument for what Dave describes other than "we didn't WANT to change it." That's OK but whoever is taking that position (coughcrbcough) needs to own it.

But the last word is that, if we'd run all of the really viable ITB cars through the process back when we proposed that to the CRB, without screwing around too much with "what we know," we wouldn't still be in this mess. The proposal to do that is what catalyzed the ITAC schism 3ish years ago, remember, because the CRB was afraid of the Audi. I suspect that similar fears - or perhaps preconceptions established by the aforementioned cheater cars - influenced the multiplier applied to the MkII Golf and Jetta, too.

Finally...


... Just being open on this and other fora is something that at times puts us at odds with some members of the SCCA Boards.

Quoted for posterity in case you get disappeared.

K

[JeffYoung]

I'm getting old so my memory is increasingly suspect, but as I recall Chris was on the call when we did the "confidence" call on the question of whether to apply the standard multiplier or something different. He argued that 30% gain was achievable as I recall, which factored into others' sufficiently high levels of confidence.

Others were there - Josh, Jeff, Jake, Andy - am I confused?

A huge part of ongoing problems is the lack of documentation. During my time on the ITAC we tried to improve that and made some progress. In this day and age, with the systems we have in place, there's really no good argument for what Dave describes other than "we didn't WANT to change it." That's OK but whoever is taking that position (coughcrbcough) needs to own it.

But the last word is that, if we'd run all of the really viable ITB cars through the process back when we proposed that to the CRB, without screwing around too much with "what we know," we wouldn't still be in this mess. The proposal to do that is what catalyzed the ITAC schism 3ish years ago, remember, because the CRB was afraid of the Audi. I suspect that similar fears - or perhaps preconceptions established by the aforementioned cheater cars - influenced the multiplier applied to the MkII Golf and Jetta, too.

Finally...



Quoted for posterity in case you get disappeared.

K

A2s were before my time, but as a non-VW guy I certainly deferred to Chris and others on what we should do with them. Chris is an open, honest guy. He does think the mechanical injection can see significant gains.

If someone has dyno sheets we can discuss with Chris, please, do send them in. I know the MR2 experience was frustrating for the MR2 drivers, but they kept at it and kept sending data and we got that situation resolved via the Process.

[shwah]

I shared numbers last time too.
I gained 22% between a stock long block with header and correct fueling and a full tilt IT build.

But the problem is bigger than this one car. You don't have an effective process to determine what a car is capable of. You rely on competitors to send you dyno sheets, and they have a vested interest in what those sheets show. There was a huge ruckus about "getting away from arbitrarily changing weights" in the classification process, but now we are IMO arbitrarily setting HP in the classification process, and getting it wrong by 5 = 85lbs. Getting it wrong by 10 is 170lbs. The reason it was named a process, rather than a formula, is that it was always intended to include subjective evaluation by educated stakeholders to set final weights. We are where we are because we tried to turn this into a spreadsheet, with only one dependent variable that is very difficult to nail down, and has a multiplicative impact on the final weight. Thus we have a lot more volatility in the outcome.

If someone wants to influence the classification of a given car or group of cars, they could write letters and create dyno sheets, or even join the ITAC and lobby for changes that suit their agenda - because the dependent variable is nearly impossible to objectively confirm. Whenever someone floats the idea of power to weight classing, a chorus of replies points out how easy it is to manipulate dyno results if tested at the track. Well how much easier is it to do that when you are doing the testing in private?

There needs to be some level of control added to the system. Maybe - if a recommendation is to change a cars weight by 100 or more within a 2 year period, that the cars need to be independently verified (not sure what that looks like - independent dynos, data boxes in the cars, something), because we are rarely going to go back and put weight back on them from what I have seen. Something to slow the pace of change, and make sure we catch mistakes while we make them or before we make them worse.

Look at what just happened:
MR2 -
2011 GCR = ITB at 2525#
Many MR2 drivers complain that they cannot be competitive at this weight
Feb 2011 FastTrack = ITB at 2430#, a 95# reduction
More MR2 cars start racing
Summer 2012, we see a competitive example that is making a run at the 2012 ITNT. By all accounts it is a car that is built right, and legal, and it is competitive with the class.
Nov 2012 FastTrack = ITB at 2335, a 95# reduction

This car lost 190# in less than 2 years, with very little feedback on how effective the first 95# move was. Seeing the 2nd move made after a front running car showed up indicates little consideration for the existing balance of the class, or possibility that there was some amount of missing or inaccurate information from the ITAC perspective. Yet it was more important to get this done now than to get it right.

Sorry guys. I was patient. I was patient for a few years waiting for the A2 to be reviewed last time. I was patient for a few years while the A3 was finally moved about halfway from where it was to where it should be. I was worried when the Hondas were moved in, were competitive out of the box, yet were not running 'cleanly' coming off many corners. Now when I see more weight coming off competitive cars that were not raced in the previous configuration very long, I get it. The class will cater to a different group of cars. Just try to put in some processes that keep things more stable for this group - IT was attractive for stability, and it is not stable any more.

It is easy for me to move for a lot of reasons - HP and FP are much better subscribed in my area. I will no longer have to drive across the country to find more than one strong competitor.
My car is competitive in HP, and I think will be in FP. I also have a network of knowledge around this car and those classes from helping others run there for a long time.
The landscape of club racing may well be changing, but I still don't see IT being allowed at the grown up table any time soon, and I do want to go and race for a national championship.

I was always going to make this move, but I had planned on making another run at the ARRC and the ITNT first. No reason to spend that money if the car won't be competitive right now, so I am just pulling the trigger sooner. I don't have the bandwidth to keep a foot in each community, so I probably won't be around this board as often going forward.

All of that said, I still think that IT in concept is the best rule set in club racing, and I hope that it regains the reputation for stability that attracted so many of us to it in the first place.

[gran racing]

Chip, I’m not naïve enough to think that politics in racing are ever-present, sadly even on our level. This is the exact reason why I followed up my original request to eliminate the default multi-valve with the request to have the Accord reviewed. I know you were against the adder and truly do appreciate the work that members on the ITAC do. Sometimes it's out of your hands.

Request to eliminate multi-valve request gets shot down.
Accord gains weight based on multi-valve default.
Multi-valve default magically gets eliminated.
Accord weight is reduced. For those not in the know, an influential person (not on the ITAC) has strong ties to the Accord.

While the end result is good and I’m pleased, what it took to get there is very disappointing. A big part of me wonders if the multi-valve default would still exist without the Accord request. I am not asking you or any other ITAC member to answer that. I also know the ITAC was against the adder and tried to eliminate it.

I will say that an old thread about “|the back room or” (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28935&highlight=multivalve&page=10) and the discussion about the multi-valve default / Accord review makes for an interesting read (especially pages 10 – 12).

[JeffYoung]

I too am concerned about the appearance of instability.

But I do think it is overstated. It's related primarily to ITB, which is our problem child class for a lot of reasons. It takes up something like 75% of our time on our calls. And the changes you see are simply efforts to review and revise old weights using the Process since the whole class was never run through it.

I disagree with you on not having an effective means of determining the horsepower function of the process. I think we do. We have seven individuals reviewing data to determine what appears to be possible with a required level of confidence before a chance is made.

The MR2 example you raise is a red herring frankly. The car should have been in ITB where it is now from the start. And the on track evidence we have seen is that the car is just barely competitive against top flight A3s and Hondas.

I do agree with you that 5 hp errors in ITB are a big deal. But the only way to correct that is to send us information. Send your dyno sheets in and give us the information we need to correct this. If the A2 Rabbit/Jetta/Golf shouldn't be at 30%, do what the MR2 guys did.

[JeffYoung]

Chip, I’m not naïve enough to think that politics in racing are ever-present, sadly even on our level. This is the exact reason why I followed up my original request to eliminate the default multi-valve with the request to have the Accord reviewed. I know you were against the adder and truly do appreciate the work that members on the ITAC do. Sometimes it's out of your hands.

Request to eliminate multi-valve request gets shot down.
Accord gains weight based on multi-valve default.
Multi-valve default magically gets eliminated.
Accord weight is reduced. For those not in the know, an influential person (not on the ITAC) has strong ties to the Accord.

While the end result is good and I’m pleased, what it took to get there is very disappointing. A big part of me wonders if the multi-valve default would still exist without the Accord request. I am not asking you or any other ITAC member to answer that. I also know the ITAC was against the adder and tried to eliminate it.

I will say that an old thread about “|the back room or” (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28935&highlight=multivalve&page=10) and the discussion about the multi-valve default / Accord review makes for an interesting read (especially pages 10 – 12).

All I can tell you is that it "wasn't that way." The Accord, the MR2 and the default all got looked at, and we ended up where we are now.

-no default
-MR2 at 20%
-Accord at 25%

Which I think is as close to correct as we are going to get.

[Harvey]

I shared numbers last time too.
I gained 22% between a stock long block with header and correct fueling and a full tilt IT build.

But the problem is bigger than this one car. You don't have an effective process to determine what a car is capable of. You rely on competitors to send you dyno sheets, and they have a vested interest in what those sheets show. There was a huge ruckus about "getting away from arbitrarily changing weights" in the classification process, but now we are IMO arbitrarily setting HP in the classification process, and getting it wrong by 5 = 85lbs. Getting it wrong by 10 is 170lbs. The reason it was named a process, rather than a formula, is that it was always intended to include subjective evaluation by educated stakeholders to set final weights. We are where we are because we tried to turn this into a spreadsheet, with only one dependent variable that is very difficult to nail down, and has a multiplicative impact on the final weight. Thus we have a lot more volatility in the outcome.

If someone wants to influence the classification of a given car or group of cars, they could write letters and create dyno sheets, or even join the ITAC and lobby for changes that suit their agenda - because the dependent variable is nearly impossible to objectively confirm. Whenever someone floats the idea of power to weight classing, a chorus of replies points out how easy it is to manipulate dyno results if tested at the track. Well how much easier is it to do that when you are doing the testing in private?

There needs to be some level of control added to the system. Maybe - if a recommendation is to change a cars weight by 100 or more within a 2 year period, that the cars need to be independently verified (not sure what that looks like - independent dynos, data boxes in the cars, something), because we are rarely going to go back and put weight back on them from what I have seen. Something to slow the pace of change, and make sure we catch mistakes while we make them or before we make them worse.

Look at what just happened:
MR2 -
2011 GCR = ITB at 2525#
Many MR2 drivers complain that they cannot be competitive at this weight
Feb 2011 FastTrack = ITB at 2430#, a 95# reduction
More MR2 cars start racing
Summer 2012, we see a competitive example that is making a run at the 2012 ITNT. By all accounts it is a car that is built right, and legal, and it is competitive with the class.
Nov 2012 FastTrack = ITB at 2335, a 95# reduction

This car lost 190# in less than 2 years, with very little feedback on how effective the first 95# move was. Seeing the 2nd move made after a front running car showed up indicates little consideration for the existing balance of the class, or possibility that there was some amount of missing or inaccurate information from the ITAC perspective. Yet it was more important to get this done now than to get it right.

Sorry guys. I was patient. I was patient for a few years waiting for the A2 to be reviewed last time. I was patient for a few years while the A3 was finally moved about halfway from where it was to where it should be. I was worried when the Hondas were moved in, were competitive out of the box, yet were not running 'cleanly' coming off many corners. Now when I see more weight coming off competitive cars that were not raced in the previous configuration very long, I get it. The class will cater to a different group of cars. Just try to put in some processes that keep things more stable for this group - IT was attractive for stability, and it is not stable any more.

It is easy for me to move for a lot of reasons - HP and FP are much better subscribed in my area. I will no longer have to drive across the country to find more than one strong competitor.
My car is competitive in HP, and I think will be in FP. I also have a network of knowledge around this car and those classes from helping others run there for a long time.
The landscape of club racing may well be changing, but I still don't see IT being allowed at the grown up table any time soon, and I do want to go and race for a national championship.

I was always going to make this move, but I had planned on making another run at the ARRC and the ITNT first. No reason to spend that money if the car won't be competitive right now, so I am just pulling the trigger sooner. I don't have the bandwidth to keep a foot in each community, so I probably won't be around this board as often going forward.

All of that said, I still think that IT in concept is the best rule set in club racing, and I hope that it regains the reputation for stability that attracted so many of us to it in the first place.


Chris very nice post and unfortunately correct on a LOT of points, come on over to Prod it certainly ain't perfect but I find I like it much better now.

[Chip42]

what the process does well is make reasonably balanced fields when the cars respond like we expect them to. that's laregly the cas ein ITA and ITS. There's data on a bunch of the key players in each class which sets their weights, and mostly everythign else just works well at defaults.

ITB has more technology levels which do not respond equally to IT mods, was bogeyed on proportedly cheated up cars which ended up hurting same when they were run legally, and was never re-processed thuroughly. Chris is right, though, that we rely on data and that data is subjective and comes from parties with skin in the game. so we don't often see high numbers. the choice then is to leave everythign at the default values and let it shake out, or to freewheel it and pick weights that feel right, effectively abandoning the process all together, even if we call it a PCA.

Long term I like the process.

also, yeah, the accord was one of the cars with data that helped break the 30% rule, so was the MR2 (and siblings, they will get re-run soon). both are still 5% or more over what dydno data we have seen, though. because there's still fears about their potential performance.

and a personal oppinion, I know MR2s and 4AGEs pretty damn well, and I know some people invovled in the the ITNT running MR2. that car is a no holds barred build, but I have serious reservations believing it to be fully legal. which is a shame, because a build of that level could have been the touchstone car for the MR2 crowd, instead it's seen as a question mark or worse.

[Rabbit05]

"But I do think it is overstated. It's related primarily to ITB, which is our problem child class for a lot of reasons. It takes up something like 75% of our time on our calls. And the changes you see are simply efforts to review and revise old weights using the Process since the whole class was never run through it.
I disagree with you on not having an effective means of determining the horsepower function of the process. I think we do. We have seven individuals reviewing data to determine what appears to be possible with a required level of confidence before a chance is made. "

Really ?? I have submitted several factory documents on the Audi's HP ?(pics somewhere on this web site) I was told that the ITAC has ONE document that disputes this..which this document still remains UNDISCLOSED ... In fact I know that a ITAC member has the Audi Factory Manual . So I disagree completely here....



"The MR2 example you raise is a red herring frankly. The car should have been in ITB where it is now from the start. And the on track evidence we have seen is that the car is just barely competitive against top flight A3s and Hondas."

Like everyone else in ITB now...



"I do agree with you that 5 hp errors in ITB are a big deal. But the only way to correct that is to send us information. Send your dyno sheets in and give us the information we need to correct this. If the A2 Rabbit/Jetta/Golf shouldn't be at 30%, do what the MR2 guys did."

I am glad we agree on this point ....as the Audi is 170 lbs overweight....(10 hp)

With the Scirocco , and the MKII Golf thing and the Audi HP "fear" , you can plainly see that something is amiss here.

Esp when the Toyota lose 190 lbs ??? And the magically reversal on the Honda Prelude ???

WOW...Really ??

[JeffYoung]

"But I do think it is overstated. It's related primarily to ITB, which is our problem child class for a lot of reasons. It takes up something like 75% of our time on our calls. And the changes you see are simply efforts to review and revise old weights using the Process since the whole class was never run through it.
I disagree with you on not having an effective means of determining the horsepower function of the process. I think we do. We have seven individuals reviewing data to determine what appears to be possible with a required level of confidence before a chance is made. "

Really ?? I have submitted several factory documents on the Audi's HP ?(pics somewhere on this web site) I was told that the ITAC has ONE document that disputes this..which this document still remains UNDISCLOSED ... In fact I know that a ITAC member has the Audi Factory Manual . So I disagree completely here....



"The MR2 example you raise is a red herring frankly. The car should have been in ITB where it is now from the start. And the on track evidence we have seen is that the car is just barely competitive against top flight A3s and Hondas."

Like everyone else in ITB now...



"I do agree with you that 5 hp errors in ITB are a big deal. But the only way to correct that is to send us information. Send your dyno sheets in and give us the information we need to correct this. If the A2 Rabbit/Jetta/Golf shouldn't be at 30%, do what the MR2 guys did."

I am glad we agree on this point ....as the Audi is 170 lbs overweight....(10 hp)

With the Scirocco , and the MKII Golf thing and the Audi HP "fear" , you can plainly see that something is amiss here.

Esp when the Toyota lose 190 lbs ??? And the magically reversal on the Honda Prelude ???

WOW...Really ??


You're getting borderline offensive.

You've been told many times (I'm the guy with the Audi manual by the way, I'm looking at it right now) what happened with the Audi. There is conflicting data on teh stock hp number. There is a microfiche that I've seen that says 120. The manual says 110. I don't have the microfiche. If I did, I'd give it to you.

You're fairly new right? There have been several competitive Audis over the years. Until you spend the time and money necessary to develop your program and your driving skills, you simply can't expect to compete against a top flight ITB program.

I will say this. All of this discussion over ITB -- to the EXCLUSION of spending needed time on other IT classes -- is really, really frustrating. Some of it is certainly the historical classing issues in the class, but quite frankly, I don't think I've seen another group of drivers so virulent in "weight advocacy" as the ITB group.

Our goal is to get you guys close and let you race. If you want true micromanagement of your weights, well, I agree: go to Prod.

EDIT: Yes, really on teh MR2. It's now at a weigth still higher than what the dyno data shows for it.

[gran racing]

Our goal is to get you guys close and let you race.

Great! Just treat them the same along the way and we're good.

It was an Accord John. ;)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I wish the ITAC could just sweep through ITB with the Process and be done, but we have to realize that its a class with so many different technologies and frankly, multiple stock HP rating methods because it spans 40 years worth of classifications. Crazy.

[JeffYoung]

I wish the ITAC could just sweep through ITB with the Process and be done, but we have to realize that its a class with so many different technologies and frankly, multiple stock HP rating methods because it spans 40 years worth of classifications. Crazy.

We were back to that debate last night -- should we do a complete sweep and how long would it take?

I think we are leaning that way though.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We were back to that debate last night -- should we do a complete sweep and how long would it take?

I think we are leaning that way though.

Oh, it can be done. Just need to set a goal and invest the time. If it were me, I would first agree on a conversion factor for the different HP ratings, then have 1 member run a spreadsheet with the core process results. Then over 3-4 con-calls you review the results and click them off ending with a final sheet to submit to the CRB. I would be sure to include notes on all cars that were outside the 25% and why.

[jjjanos]

You're getting borderline offensive.

You've been told many times (I'm the guy with the Audi manual by the way, I'm looking at it right now) what happened with the Audi. There is conflicting data on teh stock hp number. There is a microfiche that I've seen that says 120. The manual says 110. I don't have the microfiche. If I did, I'd give it to you.

To refresh everyone....
What we have is a case of multiple (and findable) sources that list 110 and a microfiche (and unfindable) source that lists 120, correct?
- Is the microfiche for an unmodified US car as sold in the US?
- What is the source of the microfiche (factory publication? trade magazine?)
- What is the citation for the microfiche so that those with an axe to grind can go to a research library and do some digging?
- Was the 120 BHP, SAE Gross, SAE Net or SAE certified?


I will say this. All of this discussion over ITB -- to the EXCLUSION of spending needed time on other IT classes -- is really, really frustrating. Some of it is certainly the historical classing issues in the class, but quite frankly, I don't think I've seen another group of drivers so virulent in "weight advocacy" as the ITB group.It's because no consistent method has been used to classify the cars. Newer classifications have received unfair advantages and older classifications have to jump through hoops to be given the same set of assumptions used by newer cars. Nor does the appearance of a conflict of interest does not assist in finding harmony.

You are on record supporting rules stabilization. That would pretty much mean that task for the ITAC would be the classification of unclassified vehicles and the reclassification of older cars in Accord with the process. ITB and ITC are the places you will find a massive GF of a mess, courtesy of the process. The ITAC has taken ITC off the table pending something, so that leaves ITB as the 600-lb white gorilla. It's also a very popular class.


Our goal is to get you guys close and let you race. If you want true micromanagement of your weights, well, I agree: go to Prod.
If that were true, you would set weights based on published HP #s and to hell with RWD/strut/FWD modifiers and to hell with whether the car is a smogged out POS or a lean, mean fighting machine as it rolled out of the factory.

[Rabbit05]

No Jeff I am not new ...

I have been racing in SCCA for over 10 years now....with a short break inbetween .


I just dont post on forums that often...only once in a great while.That is why you may think I am new, but since this is a public forum...and I have seen what has been written in this thread. I decided to voice my opinion ...for what that is worth


I dont like to "toot my own horn" . But I think I am a decent driver. (see : ITC Lime Rock track record ..also had Watkins Glen (LC) track record at one time too)


And I didnt want to say "Jeff has the Book !!".. but now the cat's out of the bag. Fine if you dont have the micofiche , that's cool.

Could you please tell me who does ? I would like to contact this person and request a copy .

[JeffYoung]

R/S/A? No issues and some of the same problems. Reason? Because the drivers in those classes for the most part realize that "50 lbs" does NOT equal a second a lap or some such nonsense, and actually work on and develop their cars rather than claim "new cars get advantages older ones don't." That mantra from the WDCR ITB crowd (well, some of them anyway) is pretty much nonsensical.

Since the Process came on line, the ITAC has done nothing but class cars via the Process.

THe Audi "issue" is straightforward. All shopmanuals and online sources say 110 hp. An internal Audi service microfiche says 120 for that same motor.

I believe 110 should be used. Others disagreed.

We've asked MANY MANY times for Audi drivers to send dyno sheets. THe Blethans have not and neither has John. If they did, this whole issue could possibly go away.

[JeffYoung]

No Jeff I am not new ...

I have been racing in SCCA for over 10 years now....with a short break inbetween .


I just dont post on forums that often...only once in a great while.That is why you may think I am new, but since this is a public forum...and I have seen what has been written in this thread. I decided to voice my opinion ...for what that is worth


I dont like to "toot my own horn" . But I think I am a decent driver. (see : ITC Lime Rock track record ..also had Watkins Glen (LC) track record at one time too)


And I didnt want to say "Jeff has the Book !!".. but now the cat's out of the bag. Fine if you dont have the micofiche , that's cool.

Could you please tell me who does ? I would like to contact this person and request a copy .

Either Peter Keane or Chris Albin (I believe) had the microfiche).

[ajmr2]

The MR2 example you raise is a red herring frankly. The car should have been in ITB where it is now from the start.

FWIW, coming from ITA to ITB at the weight we are finally at would not have produced a sudden ringer in ITB. And it won't now. We fought hard for years in ITA to get a fair shake on ther 85-89 MR2, and it went through a couple weight loss adjustments while in ITA. Once we moved to ITB we were awarded 255# for the privilege. The car was a pig and we went through hubs and brakes like you wouldn't believe. After several years of endless debate, personal positions taken while seemingly ignoring dyno sheet evidence, and a few guys determned to keep the MR2 on the radar, we finally got what I consider fair treatment, NOT special treatment. And we had a lot of support from non MR2 racers who saw we were getting screwed for years.
So if you have a gripe, write you letters and ask for what you think is fair. Gather your buddies who run the same car and twist their arms to send in letters of support. Take the time to submit your dyno sheets and stay after it.
One thing I learned in this process is that most of guys on the ITAC and CRB want to do the right thing. It did take a long time, but I know from personal experience that the current ITAC is eager to help make thing fair. Remember, this is a club made up of volunteers with a passion for cars. Preparing for conference calls, debating the issues presented and making informed decisions is not an easy job and it's extremely time consuming.
I've been quilty of venting on his forum from time to time, but it doesn't help to sling mud or insult anyone. Just take a deep breath and start planning your strategy. Or not!

:024:

[jjjanos]

R/S/A? No issues and some of the same problems. Reason? Because the drivers in those classes for the most part realize that "50 lbs" does NOT equal a second a lap or some such nonsense

With all do respect... 50 lbs on ITC > 50 lbs on ITB > 50 lbs on ITA > 50 lbs ITS > 50 lbs on ITR. I hope I don't have to explain why.


..and actually work on and develop their cars rather than claim "new cars get advantages older ones don't." That mantra from the WDCR ITB crowd (well, some of them anyway) is pretty much nonsensical.

Perhaps I have not understood correctly. A never-before classified 2005 Nash Rambler (will fit in ITB) with a multi-valve engine comes before you. There is no dyno sheet (the car has never been built to IT standards). It is FWD and rated at 100HP. The default HP multiplier is what?

An already-classified multi-valve Stutz Bearclaw GT (ITB car) has come before your august selves requesting reclassification. Reverse math gives the HP multiplier at 1.4. The competitor does not submit a dyno sheet. It is FWD and rated at 100HP. The default multiplier is identical to the one used above?

Y'all know NOTHING about either car other than the published information (and you have some really uncompetitive lap times for the Bearclaw). Both cars get identical weights without requesting additional information from the submitters?


THe Audi "issue" is straightforward. All shopmanuals and online sources say 110 hp. An internal Audi service microfiche says 120 for that same motor.

And a little internet search shows that Audi had 5 "different" motors in the Audi and they seem to have different BHP ratings. (Yes, I used Wiki). So knowing that the document came from Audi doesn't help.

Was it for the stock US-legal motor and not a motor from a different English-language country? (Did the document have rhyming slang in it? Did it say in God We Trust or crikey or future home of the Lord of the Rings or wear a tuque?)


We've asked MANY MANY times for Audi drivers to send dyno sheets. THe Blethans have not and neither has John. If they did, this whole issue could possibly go away.

It could, but I bet it wouldn't. I bet some fleet-rank officers would claim the dynos were manipulated downwards.

[ShelbyRacer]

But the last word is that, if we'd run all of the really viable ITB cars through the process back when we proposed that to the CRB, without screwing around too much with "what we know," we wouldn't still be in this mess.
K

Interesting that you bring this up, as it was discussed at length last night. I don't know where that conversation we eventually lead us, but it is nice to hear that first-hand from someone else who was involved.

[ShelbyRacer]

Oh, it can be done. Just need to set a goal and invest the time. If it were me, I would first agree on a conversion factor for the different HP ratings, then have 1 member run a spreadsheet with the core process results. Then over 3-4 con-calls you review the results and click them off ending with a final sheet to submit to the CRB. I would be sure to include notes on all cars that were outside the 25% and why.

This sounds amazingly similar to what we discussed. I've volunteered to step up and begin to wade through things, though this is certainly a learning process for me. I know that the others on the committee will be right there too, so this is a task I'm looking forward to in many ways. The issue becomes the conflicting information, which I/we intend to document thoroughly for posterity. My simple goal is- I want to be able to look a competitor in the eye and explain what we did (or what we didn't do) and why. It still ain't going to make everyone happy, but I know that the ITAC as a whole wants to do The Right Thing (TM). Problem is, I sincerely believe that the guys who came before wanted to do The Right Thing too, and I'd like to figure out where that went awry and deal with those issues.

I can also tell you that if you take the time to request, we will take the time to give all requests consideration and discussion. In the end, you may not get what you want, but we should be able to explain whatever result was handed down. Already I've come to understand that the phrase "This should be a clear-cut one," means that the serious discussion will last about 15-20 minutes, while we weigh all the options and the ramifications of each. The last thing I (or I think any other ITAC member) want to see is someone take something we didn't do as a result of complacency, and turn that into a policy statement.

A momentary rant though-

Coming on these boards just to say that you're going to Prod/NASA/Lemons/F1 because of something that got screwed up is not the way to entice others to join your battle. Sending a letter that spells out the issue and asks for a specific result will do a heck of a lot more for your chances. You may have "done that a while back", but things could be different now. At the same time, I will say that I don't want IT to ever become a class that varies year-to-year based on the whims of the powers that be. We have to justify EVERY decision we make, positive or negative, action or no action, to the CRB. We look at every request and make decisions based on every piece of info we can find. We don't, however, act on forum suggestions or personal gripes. I don't want to see ANY driver/competitor leave this class because they didn't feel like they got a fair shake, but telling us the problem as you walk out the door doesn't give us much chance to address things.

That said, I'll tell you that I sent in my resume not because I had a problem with something that's happening, but because I think we have a pretty damn good thing going here, thanks in large part to the hard work of the guys who came before me. I'm glad to have the chance to *continue* to hone and improve things, in a way that leads to better racing for everyone. (and if you read this far, you're as persistent as I am, and thanks for hearing me out!)

[shwah]

and a personal oppinion, I know MR2s and 4AGEs pretty damn well, and I know some people invovled in the the ITNT running MR2. that car is a no holds barred build, but I have serious reservations believing it to be fully legal. which is a shame, because a build of that level could have been the touchstone car for the MR2 crowd, instead it's seen as a question mark or worse.

The car was fast enough at Road America that other competitors called me and asked about it on Saturday morning. They also talked to the driver. He described a very thorough build process that included flow testing of multiple intakes and heads along the way, and an intention to run at the ARRC. That passes my snif test, and I expect we may get to find out next month.

The very point that this car is out there and appropriately competitive, yet you chose to act regardless definitely sent me a message about desire to get it right vs. desire to "fix" the MR2. It hurts perception regardless of any legitimate motivations.

[JeffYoung]

The car was fast enough at Road America that other competitors called me and asked about it on Saturday morning. They also talked to the driver. He described a very thorough build process that included flow testing of multiple intakes and heads along the way, and an intention to run at the ARRC. That passes my snif test, and I expect we may get to find out next month.

The very point that this car is out there and appropriately competitive, yet you chose to act regardless definitely sent me a message about desire to get it right vs. desire to "fix" the MR2. It hurts perception regardless of any legitimate motivations.

Huh? The fact that we adjusted the car via the Process regardless of what ONE car did at ONE track should give you more comfort that this is far more objective than what we had before.

I really don't understand your position here. Are you saying we shouldn't have dropped the weight off the MR2 to get it "correct" under the Process vis a vis the dyno sheets we have because one MR2 ran well at Road America?

[JoshS]

And a little internet search shows that Audi had 5 "different" motors in the Audi and they seem to have different BHP ratings. (Yes, I used Wiki). So knowing that the document came from Audi doesn't help.

Was it for the stock US-legal motor and not a motor from a different English-language country? (Did the document have rhyming slang in it? Did it say in God We Trust or crikey or future home of the Lord of the Rings or wear a tuque?)

Yes, it's a US-spec sheet.

[shwah]

Huh? The fact that we adjusted the car via the Process regardless of what ONE car did at ONE track should give you more comfort that this is far more objective than what we had before.

I really don't understand your position here. Are you saying we shouldn't have dropped the weight off the MR2 to get it "correct" under the Process vis a vis the dyno sheets we have because one MR2 ran well at Road America?

I think there is reason to stop and consider the legitimacy of your data when you see one, yes one, running competitively. I have an issue with proceeding without pause, not that you took weight off per se.

I don't want to engage a pissing match. There were some suggestions above to be part of the conversation and help get this right. I was trying to share what things look like from another point of view. Sorry if it came across wrong.

[Chip42]

The car was fast enough at Road America that other competitors called me and asked about it on Saturday morning. They also talked to the driver. He described a very thorough build process that included flow testing of multiple intakes and heads along the way, and an intention to run at the ARRC. That passes my snif test, and I expect we may get to find out next month.

The very point that this car is out there and appropriately competitive, yet you chose to act regardless definitely sent me a message about desire to get it right vs. desire to "fix" the MR2. It hurts perception regardless of any legitimate motivations.

here's what went down WRT that MR2. no punches pulled - so if anyone reading this is involved in that effort, I appologise if I offent in my assumptions.

I met a guy at CMP in 2008 driving a VERY slow ITB MR2. being involved with the cars myself, I made a point to chat with him. I like the guy, he's smart and entertaining. But I disagree on legality of some of the things he finds no issue with. file it away. fast forward a few years, and we have the discussions on this board about the MR2, I have some hands on knowledge about the cars as prepped now, and some others are doing VERY serious efforts to crack 15% gains, and failing. you've all followed allong well enough to know this and the ensuing facts.

a few months back, I hear of some killer fast ITB MR2 at Rd. America. I can't find anything on it. then a little while later I catch wind that he's in the ITNT, I check, I learn who it is, I find race results, lap times, history on the driver, whatever the internet is giving up. I find Race footage from the IT SPectacular where he was running. I see a car that has motor. I bring it to the attention of the MR2 crowd. no one knows who it is. then that guy from CMP pops up. we've talked a few times since then and every time he's talking about some new "loophole" he's found, which I almost always find to be very illegal, so that saga continues. turns out he was intimately invovled with the car in its early stages. from what I know of this guy's take on the rules, and what I have SEEN that car do in videos - like miss a shift exiting the keyhole on L1 at MidO and then motor by what is granted not the fatsest car out there but still the straight line recovery is noteworthy. I believe the car to have some illegal modifications. yes, from all accounts it is a stellar build with a lot of effort in it, good parts, and a lot of time dialing it in, but you don't get huge leaps from polishing a turd. you get incimental improvement. I know well what others have in their MR2s and what they are getting out of them, in numbers and how it appears on track. this car was in another league all together. AND IT STILL didn't touch pablo, a civic, or the "fastest rabbit in the world" and was roughly 2s off the lap record at rd am.

yes. we moved ahead with this knowledge. FWIW, he probobly wont make the ARRC due to breaking the crankshaft spinnning the thing over 9k consistently @ rd. america.

Another data point, just to get it out there. Steve U (quadzjr here) set the ITB pole at the SARRC invitational at Roebling in his MR2. by 1 or 2 tenths only, but he did it. thats a track/car combo that works well. His is the best prepared and legal MR2 that I know of, outside of possibly Nick E's (the Texan), and he makes between 108 and 109 whp (corrected) depending on the dyno. This occured after our recommendation went to the CRB, but it wouldn't have changed my vote either. He faught for the lead with the RSR A2 VW for ~7 laps but finished 3rd, behind what used to be the Underwood Civic, now driven by Steve S. class balance looks OK to me, were I to consider such things as on track evidence.

[preparedcivic]

On edit: Chip and I posted at the same time. The vid he references is below.

There are plenty of suspicions about that particular ITNT running MR2. My kid's in-car from one of the Mid-Ohio IT Fest races in July shows that car missing a shift exiting the Keyhole on Lap 1, scattering the field immediately behind, and passing him every which way, only to have those cars now ahead get steamrolled down the back straight into Madness. SERIOUS straight-line handling. See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVhe5k7XHRI

[Chip42]

we should all be glad that the feared MR2 in that video was on bad rubber and/or was poorly driven. it appears to park it in the coners while everyone else views handling as the MR2's strength.:rolleyes:

[coreyehcx]

That looked like a higher class car coming up on traffic. I cant wait to hear that everyone else didn't have a top flight build or enough development time....

[StephenB]

That Red MR2 was a texan and I think his name was Nick Engles, possibly the same person Chip is speaking about that has a full tilt legal MR2 from Texas named Nick E?

I introduced myself to him and thought he was nice but to be honest I didn't talk to him much about what he did, just that my dad had one in ITA until I rolled it at Tremblant. Fast car but still NOTHING for the Golfs in a straight line, honestly. Kirk would probably agree as he pulled him easily on the straights.

Stephen

PS: Someone earlier said it should never have been an ITA car... I kinda disagree. What other Pre 1985 car can you think of that is that much faster to justify it not being in ITA? The reality is is that ITA just got faster as ITB is now because those old ITA cars have continued to move down to ITB.

[StephenB]

You're getting borderline offensive.

You've been told many times (I'm the guy with the Audi manual by the way, I'm looking at it right now) what happened with the Audi. There is conflicting data on the stock hp number. There is a microfiche that I've seen that says 120. The manual says 110. I don't have the microfiche. If I did, I'd give it to you.

You're fairly new right? There have been several competitive Audis over the years. Until you spend the time and money necessary to develop your program and your driving skills, you simply can't expect to compete against a top flight ITB program.




To refresh everyone....
What we have is a case of multiple (and findable) sources that list 110 and a microfiche (and unfindable) source that lists 120, correct?
- Is the microfiche for an unmodified US car as sold in the US?
- What is the source of the microfiche (factory publication? trade magazine?)
- What is the citation for the microfiche so that those with an axe to grind can go to a research library and do some digging?
- Was the 120 BHP, SAE Gross, SAE Net or SAE certified?

It's because no consistent method has been used to classify the cars. Newer classifications have received unfair advantages and older classifications have to jump through hoops to be given the same set of assumptions used by newer cars. Nor does the appearance of a conflict of interest does not assist in finding harmony.

You are on record supporting rules stabilization. That would pretty much mean that task for the ITAC would be the classification of unclassified vehicles and the reclassification of older cars in Accord with the process. ITB and ITC are the places you will find a massive GF of a mess, courtesy of the process. The ITAC has taken ITC off the table pending something, so that leaves ITB as the 600-lb white gorilla. It's also a very popular class.


If that were true, you would set weights based on published HP #s and to hell with RWD/strut/FWD modifiers and to hell with whether the car is a smogged out POS or a lean, mean fighting machine as it rolled out of the factory.




THe Audi "issue" is straightforward. All shopmanuals and online sources say 110 hp. An internal Audi service microfiche says 120 for that same motor.

I believe 110 should be used. Others disagreed.

We've asked MANY MANY times for Audi drivers to send dyno sheets. THe Blethans have not and neither has John. If they did, this whole issue could possibly go away.


Either Peter Keane or Chris Albin (I believe) had the microfiche).




And a little internet search shows that Audi had 5 "different" motors in the Audi and they seem to have different BHP ratings. (Yes, I used Wiki). So knowing that the document came from Audi doesn't help.

Was it for the stock US-legal motor and not a motor from a different English-language country? (Did the document have rhyming slang in it? Did it say in God We Trust or crikey or future home of the Lord of the Rings or wear a tuque?)



It could, but I bet it wouldn't. I bet some fleet-rank officers would claim the dynos were manipulated downwards.


Yes, it's a US-spec sheet.



Just wanted to say thanks for acknowledging our success with the Audis :) I will be honest in saying that I personally believe the 120HP number to be inaccurate but accurate... I have friends at VW, and throughout the factory Audi rally teams from the 80's that I think personally know way more than any of us including Irish mike, Chris, and Peter. I am 99% sure they sited the HP number WITH the quattro downpipe and header which DOES produce that extra STOCK HP. The mistake is that it was never offered on any of the ITB varients and only the quattro. In the end it is what it is and I can't argue with what has been shown as evidence that is beleived to be accurate. I accepted this answer a year or so ago since that was different then the original reason which was that we were getting a Comp adjustment for the 5cyl tourque that it produced. We did get asked to take our cars to Dyno's but didn't. No denying that. I honestly didn't think skipping a race at the time was worth it to pay for it and after someone offered to pay I felt guilty about it knowing that I wasn't going to race the car much longer (And didn't think anyone else was going to build one). I knew I was going to build a new car in a new class that had a new begining that I trusted was as good as they could make it (ITR). I still have the same car with the same engine making the same good power in it. Maybe I will ask Andy how much to take it down to his shop for a visit. It is only a little over an hr away and I trust him that he would get an accurate reading for everyone. In fact I will send him a PM.

Stephen

PS: I will also say on record as I have in the past that my (not my brothers) original request 4 or 5 years ago was to show that I DIDN'T think our car should take off 250+lbs and that SOMETHING WAS WRONG with the target numbers being used. That didn't work and instead most of the the ITAC resigned and the A3 and others got processed including all the other ITA cars and NOW the Audi is no longer competitive.

PSS: Thank you again to the ITAC for the time you have put into all of this, agree or disagree with the evidence I still support and honestly think you made what you felt was the best decision for the class based on the facts that you had.

PSSS: Sorry John, I know you still want to rock the Audi and I hope it all works out for you. I will see if I can get Dyno numbers on my car to give the feedback requested. No honest clue if it will help or hurt you! I would love to race you at some point Audi to Audi :)

[Chip42]

Thanks Stephen. and yes, Nick Engles. I don't like to put full names of for people I don't know or who don't know to use their full names on the boards. I think far too much emphasis was placed on one car and one event with what I understand was limited competition. moving on.

[Rabbit05]

Hey Stephen,
Yeah someday we'll get a chance to race each other.

Jeff is correct , I have not had the car on a dyno to see what it'll produce. I am in the same boat as far as money goes ...being short on it and all. Would I be open to taking it to a dyno ..absolutely no problem ...and if I am wrong I will be the first to admit it . But I am going on what published document and knowledge I have , is the case for my argument.

And this has nothing to do with being an ITB car...if I was driving any IT car or Prod or Formula whatever... and I had conflicting information from the governing body, I would state the same argument ...as I would expect any other competitor/member of our club to do.

If the only option at this point for anything to be done on the Audi is dyno work..is there any guarantee that the dyno input I obtain will not be just tossed aside as " tainted or fixed " numbers ? I am going to be honest , I don't have the $$ to really toss out he window for nothing.

And there is a dyno shop down the street from me , Synapse motorsports . They run a small World Challenge team ..Honda's I believe . I will contact them to see what it'll be to have my car put on the machine .

[JeffYoung]

Hey Stephen,
Yeah someday we'll get a chance to race each other.

Jeff is correct , I have not had the car on a dyno to see what it'll produce. I am in the same boat as far as money goes ...being short on it and all. Would I be open to taking it to a dyno ..absolutely no problem ...and if I am wrong I will be the first to admit it . But I am going on what published document and knowledge I have , is the case for my argument.

And this has nothing to do with being an ITB car...if I was driving any IT car or Prod or Formula whatever... and I had conflicting information from the governing body, I would state the same argument ...as I would expect any other competitor/member of our club to do.

If the only option at this point for anything to be done on the Audi is dyno work..is there any guarantee that the dyno input I obtain will not be just tossed aside as " tainted or fixed " numbers ? I am going to be honest , I don't have the $$ to really toss out he window for nothing.

And there is a dyno shop down the street from me , Synapse motorsports . They run a small World Challenge team ..Honda's I believe . I will contact them to see what it'll be to have my car put on the machine .

At MOST the dyno will cost you $200 per HOUR, it should be less, and you should be able to get it done in far less than one hour.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what is the value of a set of dyno numbers for a 90% developed motor with no intention to tune or develop?

[JeffYoung]

I think there is reason to stop and consider the legitimacy of your data when you see one, yes one, running competitively. I have an issue with proceeding without pause, not that you took weight off per se.

I don't want to engage a pissing match. There were some suggestions above to be part of the conversation and help get this right. I was trying to share what things look like from another point of view. Sorry if it came across wrong.

And that is exactly what we do. If there is a report of some car performing well, we take a look at it.

But it's crazy to think that one performance on one track by one driver in a car of unknown build development and legality should trump the dyno data we had for the MR2 (more than ANY other car since I've been on the ITAC).

Have you ever competed against an MR2?

[JeffYoung]

So what is the value of a set of dyno numbers for a 90% developed motor with no intention to tune or develop?

It's something. It's not great, but it's something.

[StephenB]

Thanks Stephen. and yes, Nick Engles. I don't like to put full names of for people I don't know or who don't know to use their full names on the boards. I think far too much emphasis was placed on one car and one event with what I understand was limited competition. moving on.

Oh my bad. I really liked the guy. Enjoyed talking with him. The MR2 was fast but certainly not as fast as the other ITB cars at that track that day. the VW that Kirk and his team mate had were much faster in a straight line as well as maybe even the Honda IMHO. The MR2 was quick but certainly not even close to an overdog. I would ask Kirk what he thought. He is a respectable honest guy that will tell you how it is. I was just spectating and not racing on track with him.

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

Quick suggestion: PMs suggesting that I'm "ignorant," shouldn't be racing, and shouldn't be on the ITAC REALLY don't help you accomplish the goal you are seeking to accomplish.

Really.

[Greg Amy]

Quick suggestion: PMs suggesting that I'm "ignorant," shouldn't be racing, and shouldn't be on the ITAC REALLY don't help you accomplish the goal you are seeking to accomplish.
Sorry, dude, it was the rum talkin'... ;)

(No, it wasn't me. Well, at least not using my public persona...)

[jjjanos]

Wasn't me.... I wouldn't do it via a PM. :D

[RacerBowie]

Does this forum have a banhammer?

I mean we all know Jeffykins is a d-bag, but even d-bags get some slack when they are

VOLUNTEERING THEIR TIME TO TRY TO HELP MAKE THE CATEGORY BETTER!

Sheesh. Somebody oughta be ashamed of himself.

[Flyinglizard]

I apologize to Jeff. I just cant stand it when physics are ignored. Sorry. I acted alone... No rum/
Yes, I run a lot @ Sebring, but earlier 50-100 days at WGI, many @ Roebling., But most of my money days are at Sebring.
Later. MM

FWIW I built 2 MR 2s for customers. They were not fast enough to run with the legal A2 @ the same build specs. ( all legal) The power was about the same, but the weight was at maybe 2500# vs 2280. The car were very close at the same weights tho. IE the Golf with 2 people could run with the MR solo. 115hp or so

[JeffYoung]

Does this forum have a banhammer?

I mean we all know Jeffykins is a d-bag, but even d-bags get some slack when they are

VOLUNTEERING THEIR TIME TO TRY TO HELP MAKE THE CATEGORY BETTER!

Sheesh. Somebody oughta be ashamed of himself.


THanks....I think.....lol....

[gran racing]

Putting the Audi on the dyno could only hurt it. Makes good power... Oh, all of that with xyz being done. Makes low power... Well duh, no pro motor, and no xyz. Like Andy, I'd be curious how the info could be used productively.

[shwah]

And that is exactly what we do. If there is a report of some car performing well, we take a look at it.

But it's crazy to think that one performance on one track by one driver in a car of unknown build development and legality should trump the dyno data we had for the MR2 (more than ANY other car since I've been on the ITAC).

Have you ever competed against an MR2?

I think it is a stretch to assume a car is illegal, without protesting it.
I don't see any more validity in dyno sheets submitted by people with a vested interest in minimum gains.
The way this happened still creates a perception that there was an agenda to "fix" the MR2 now, rather than get it right. None of us knew that Chip was accusing Engle of cheating until his post yesterday. Perceptions are based on what we know and see happening.
The Honda issue sits the same way with me. We saw Underwood run strongly at the front at the ARRC in a car that he said did not have proper fueling or engine management. Yet weight has been taken off.

It is interesting to hear the double standard professed when Chip points out that an A2 Golf is hard to keep up with in an MR2 of unknown prep and driving level, yet it is inappropriate to point out on track performance of an MR2. I should hope that the car the class was indexed to is competitive - especially one with 25 years of IT specific racing development behind it, like the A2.

Regardless of how or why, the ITAC is changing the performance envelope of the class. At this point, I no longer think the Golf 3 is heavy. In fact it should probably move back to 2330 or wherever it was, or it will not be able to compete. Similarly the Golf 2 was and still is heavy.

The last go around, I felt that the Golf 2 was not treated fairly by the process, but I also felt that with no holds barred development and good driving it could still compete. I stated right here in this forum that I would drop the issue and up my game. I no longer feel that way. I will take the suggestions above and write a letter asking for the A2 VWs to be reprocessed at 25%, and why, because the car is nearly 100# over weight compared to the front running competition. My hope for those still racing A2 VWs in IT is that the ITAC will put them in a position to continue competing at the front. There are a LOT of these cars out there, and those members are important to the long term success of the class.

This is it for me in this thread. Thanks to all of you in the community and on the ITAC that have engaged each other in what I think is a critically important conversation for the future of ITB. I have a really busy week of work and school responsibilities going on, but when I get a chance, I will send in the request.

[Chip42]

I'm not accusing him, I suspect that there are liberties taken that are questionable at best (i.e. illegal) based on circumstantial evidence. cheating is intentional, thinkning you are following the rules and actually going beyond what they allow may render an illegal car but isn't intentionally cheating. there's a difference. and as others have attested, it's irrelevant because he wasn't that fast anyhow.

there is no double standard. I was making a point re: the SIC race. the ITAC DOES NOT consider on track performance on its own, particularly not 1 or 2 specific events, but If I were to, there's a data point. one that shows a very well built and driven example of a car YOU claim to be not in need of adjustment (weight loss) running tight with another very well built and driven example of a car you DO claim needs one (again, weight loss). I was throwing it into play to get another "hidden piece of data" in the open. also, FWIW, Roebling is a track well suited to the MR2, unlike those tracks which require the ability to accelerate out of slow corners. check the same driver's lap times at sebring or CMP. it's simply less competitive there. "horses for courses". this is one of the MANY reasons we don't look at discrete on track data.

the A2 SHOULD be a great car, and there certainly are a bunch out there. if the classification isn't right, lets fix it. but it will require input as I understand there is knowledge supporitng the current weight. see previous posts from some previous ITAC members as I wans't around then, but some others were. we have a letter, we will be doing research. your help in that matter is appreciated.

[Knestis]

I've thought about this post for several days so please believe me when I say it's well considered, and take it for what it might be worth.

For the first time in something like a quarter century in the SCCA, I'm seriously considering my primary race car NOT being an IT car.

It's primarily because if I have to put up with crap suggestions like dyno pulls, serious consideration of on-track performance, and competition adjustments (bleah!), I'll rebuild with something I can run Nationals with.

We are ---> this <--- close to effing up the category one final time, perhaps to its death.

PLEASE DO SO KNOWING THAT IT MIGHT WELL BE THE END OF IT.

K

[dickita15]

Quick suggestion: PMs suggesting that I'm "ignorant," shouldn't be racing, and shouldn't be on the ITAC REALLY don't help you accomplish the goal you are seeking to accomplish.

Really.

Love it, kinda like the email I got last month that started with “we know you all are stupid but don’t treat us like we are”:shrug:

[Greg Amy]

I really gotta lay off that rum...

[JeffYoung]

I've thought about this post for several days so please believe me when I say it's well considered, and take it for what it might be worth.

For the first time in something like a quarter century in the SCCA, I'm seriously considering my primary race car NOT being an IT car.

It's primarily because if I have to put up with crap suggestions like dyno pulls, serious consideration of on-track performance, and competition adjustments (bleah!), I'll rebuild with something I can run Nationals with.

We are ---> this <--- close to effing up the category one final time, perhaps to its death.

PLEASE DO SO KNOWING THAT IT MIGHT WELL BE THE END OF IT.

K

Well, that is disconcerting but not surprising to hear.

I agree with you fully about on track and comp adjustments.

On dyno data, I hate having to use it but in many cases, on the gain number, I'm not sure what else we are supposed to do. It's the way the Process is set up. The gain number is the critical factor and it's where the human error element comes in. How else do we get it right when there is data out there suggesting a deviation from the 25% default should be employed?

I'm very serious about this -- how else do we do this correctly?

[Bill Miller]

I'm not accusing him, I suspect that there are liberties taken that are questionable at best (i.e. illegal) based on circumstantial evidence. cheating is intentional, thinkning you are following the rules and actually going beyond what they allow may render an illegal car but isn't intentionally cheating. there's a difference. and as others have attested, it's irrelevant because he wasn't that fast anyhow.


the A2 SHOULD be a great car, and there certainly are a bunch out there. if the classification isn't right, lets fix it. but it will require input as I understand there is knowledge supporitng the current weight. see previous posts from some previous ITAC members as I wans't around then, but some others were. we have a letter, we will be doing research. your help in that matter is appreciated.

Actually Chip, there isn't a difference. If it's illegal, it's illegal, it doesn't matter if it was done on purpose or not. I agree that how it reflects on the individual involved is different, but not as it pertains to the car.

If there's knowledge/data out there that support the higher weight, then it needs to be produced, if you're going to use it. Isn't that what the ops manual says? I can't believe people are ok with "I know a guy who knew a guy that thought he saw one once"

And the more I think about it, Josh is right on point. Use the set multiplier, and if a different weight is warranted, use the proper mechanism, a PCA. A lot of people put a lot of time, thought, and effort into developing that system for it to be just chucked aside.

[Chip42]

it's not about what I want. you know that. 25% might fly right through, I don't know, we haven't tried in my time, but it's been suggested by others who know the history and players that there's likely to be some debate about that. and yeah, we SHOULD have data we can point to to backup the non-standard multiplier. no argument. we're working on making that part of the system BETTER moving forward. We can't change the past, but we still have to deal with it sometimes.

re: cheating. I differentiate because I have been told (never seen it personally) that the car in question is a top notch build, but I also know it's showing more speed than other examples by a not small margin (straight line speed is NOT where ANY other current MR2 shines, and they are particularly dull in straight line acceleration). Also, I know a guy who was involved with it who is known to read more into allowances then they state, sometimes WAY more, and I've talked to him about some of his innovations during the last 4 or so years, which I recently learned was the timeframe when Nick was building the car. THAT suggests to me that something on the car is not right. I don't think the guy is "cheating" in a malicious sense by doing something obviously illegal, like the wrong manifold, too much CR, etc... and again, it doesn't matter, because it's not enough faster than expected to scare ME into reexamining the "5% higher than we've actually seen" multiplier the MR2 just got re-run with.

We are discussing a moratoreum on classification changes in ITB to allow a run through of the entire class. that might end up being a blanket reset of everyone to 25%, sans those we have good data on. Though I fear we'll just wind up pissing off a different group of drivers if we do so.

[erlrich]

On dyno data, I hate having to use it but in many cases, on the gain number, I'm not sure what else we are supposed to do. It's the way the Process is set up. The gain number is the critical factor and it's where the human error element comes in. How else do we get it right when there is data out there suggesting a deviation from the 25% default should be employed?

I'm very serious about this -- how else do we do this correctly?

You don't. You guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and whatever you do is sure to piss someone off. On the one extreme you have those who feel a 100% fixed, formulaic process, with zero allowance for deviation, is the only way to go. At the other extreme you have those who want their cars adjusted because Joe Blow beat their nearly stock Neon last week in his brand new SpeedSource-prepped Meotter. The first group only care about the classification process, and not the outcomes, and are perfectly happy with the inequities that result. The second group only gives a shit about their own little world, and similarly could care less if there is any parity within the classes (as long as their cars are at the top of the heap). It's a no-win situation.

All you can do is try very, very hard to make sure anything you do is thoroughly thought out, and well documented, and supported by as much reliable evidence as is possible.

And oh, BTW, where is the ITAC on my request to drop 100 lbs from my car? I want to go down to Atlanta in a couple of weeks, but at the current weight I have no chance of winning...if you can't help me I'll be forced to go race in World Challenge or something...

[JeffYoung]

Love it, kinda like the email I got last month that started with “we know you all are stupid but don’t treat us like we are”:shrug:

Lovely. But then again, he may be right. Don't you drive one of those dorito motor cars?

Hope all is well.

[Ed Funk]

Ya know, back in the good ol days when the crust was cooling and Opels roamed the earth, the first paragraph of the IT specs said something to the effect that "we don't promise that your car will be competitive". You made your choices and you raced. Some made choices based on wanting to win, some made choices based on what they had in their driveway, some made choices by consulting fortune tellers. The weight of the car was published curb weight. Put a cage in take some shit out, as long as your car weighed what the factory said it should you were good to go.

Trying to make turds shine and be as fast as everyone else's car is just an exercise in frustration, and pisses off most people.

Make the rule as simple as when Andy was in Middle School and let people choose whether they want a chance at winning or driving their favorite (insert car name here)

Just an old farts opinion...get over it! 8^)

[DavidM]

You don't. You guys are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and whatever you do is sure to piss someone off. On the one extreme you have those who feel a 100% fixed, formulaic process, with zero allowance for deviation, is the only way to go. At the other extreme you have those who want their cars adjusted because Joe Blow beat their nearly stock Neon last week in his brand new SpeedSource-prepped Meotter. The first group only care about the classification process, and not the outcomes, and are perfectly happy with the inequities that result. The second group only gives a shit about their own little world, and similarly could care less if there is any parity within the classes (as long as their cars are at the top of the heap). It's a no-win situation.

All you can do is try very, very hard to make sure anything you do is thoroughly thought out, and well documented, and supported by as much reliable evidence as is possible.

And oh, BTW, where is the ITAC on my request to drop 100 lbs from my car? I want to go down to Atlanta in a couple of weeks, but at the current weight I have no chance of winning...if you can't help me I'll be forced to go race in World Challenge or something...

That request was denied. Still waiting on the dyno info. :D

There are two choices here.

A) Run a car through the process without any other consideration with the 25% number and whatever adders/subtractors and call it done. Cars that make more than 25%, good for them. Cars that make less than 25%, too bad. There can be no arguing of the numbers, though.

B] Attempt to modify the process in some fashion to take into account actual data and other info. This is the direction the ITAC has gone and it opens up the door for a lot more discussion on how a car's weight was achieved.

If you pick A, people will probably bitch as much (or even more) *because* the ITAC isn't going deeper than running a car through the formula. I think the ITAC is doing a good job at trying to balance using real data versus the paper process. I don't think it's an even remotely easy job to do and is a pretty thankless task. I think if the ITAC explains their reasoning and documents everything that is the best they can do. That won't be enough for some people, though, and they'll still complain.

David

[Ed Funk]

^^^ "A" is a pretty good way to update the "good old days" method, the good cars get raced, the turds get flushed.

[dickita15]

Lovely. But then again, he may be right. Don't you drive one of those dorito motor cars?

Hope all is well.

says they guy racing a British IT car.:D

All is very well.

[coreyehcx]

Ya know, back in the good ol days when the crust was cooling and Opels roamed the earth, the first paragraph of the IT specs said something to the effect that "we don't promise that your car will be competitive". You made your choices and you raced. Some made choices based on wanting to win, some made choices based on what they had in their driveway, some made choices by consulting fortune tellers. The weight of the car was published curb weight. Put a cage in take some shit out, as long as your car weighed what the factory said it should you were good to go.

Trying to make turds shine and be as fast as everyone else's car is just an exercise in frustration, and pisses off most people.

Make the rule as simple as when Andy was in Middle School and let people choose whether they want a chance at winning or driving their favorite (insert car name here)

Just an old farts opinion...get over it! 8^)


That would just be Hondas and VWs then :lol:

[gran racing]

Here's what I expect from the ITAC, and SCCA as a whole:

Be able to look any member directly in the face and tell them how the car they care about was classified. Explain what data was used, and be honest. Then be open to listening to what they have to say, absorb it, ask for hard proof it need be then give it some thought. As a part of all of this, have it documented so the next round of ITAC or CRB or BOD can refer to. I do not expect perfection, however I and others do expect to be treated fairly.

For years I've heard the ITAC has spend a large percentage of time on ITB. This includes the "re-do" V1 and V2. I totally am not suggesting this isn't the case but have been surprised if with the small number of changes. Now granted I've kinda ignored things lately because I realized it was just frustrating. Before you react, I'm am NOT saying the ITAC isn't working hard. Hell, I went on vaca with Gulick and he just had to find a damn hot spot then attend a lengthy con call while his G/F thought he was insane. Well...

The PM / e-mail? I think the advice I've been told kinda transfers "no one ever made a statue of a critic." No matter how amazing of a job you do, you just can't please everyone.

A total re-do of ITB at just 25%? That scares me. Be open to requests to re-evaluate cars on request? Great! (Again, document findings!!!!)

[JeffYoung]

Here's what I expect from the ITAC, and SCCA as a whole:

Be able to look any member directly in the face and tell them how the car they care about was classified. Explain what data was used, and be honest. Then be open to listening to what they have to say, absorb it, ask for hard proof it need be then give it some thought. As a part of all of this, have it documented so the next round of ITAC or CRB or BOD can refer to. I do not expect perfection, however I and others do expect to be treated fairly.

For years I've heard the ITAC has spend a large percentage of time on ITB. This includes the "re-do" V1 and V2. I totally am not suggesting this isn't the case but have been surprised if with the small number of changes. Now granted I've kinda ignored things lately because I realized it was just frustrating. Before you react, I'm am NOT saying the ITAC isn't working hard. Hell, I went on vaca with Gulick and he just had to find a damn hot spot then attend a lengthy con call while his G/F thought he was insane. Well...

The PM / e-mail? I think the advice I've been told kinda transfers "no one ever made a statue of a critic." No matter how amazing of a job you do, you just can't please everyone.

A total re-do of ITB at just 25%? That scares me. Be open to requests to re-evaluate cars on request? Great! (Again, document findings!!!!)

I'm not in favor of a redo at just 25%.

I made a point of mentioning the PM just as an example of what is NOT persuasive. In any way, shape or form.

I am serious about this. ITB takes up TOO....MUCH...TIME. As a result, we don't get bigger picture stuff done and don't work on the other classes. R needs some corrections. C needs a hard look. We need to start looking at forced induction.

None of that gets touched because we have to argue about 30 year old Audi microfiches. I suppose it must be done, but I'll be honest -- I think the class as a whole could use with a bit more relaxation, more racing, and less 'weight advocacy.'

[Knestis]

Well, that is disconcerting but not surprising to hear.

I agree with you fully about on track and comp adjustments.

On dyno data, I hate having to use it but in many cases, on the gain number, I'm not sure what else we are supposed to do. It's the way the Process is set up. The gain number is the critical factor and it's where the human error element comes in. How else do we get it right when there is data out there suggesting a deviation from the 25% default should be employed?

I'm very serious about this -- how else do we do this correctly?

Quit trying so hard. Seriously. The first step toward failure is trying to "get it right." Get it somewhere sort of, kind of, mostly in the same ballpark and call it good.

When someone gets the idea that y'all are going to strive for the Truth, it sets up completely unrealistic expectations and just encourages bad behavior. It's enabling all of the paddock and board BS.

1. Do B over from scratch.

2. IGNORE all of the things you think you "know" vis-a-vis on-track competitiveness.

3. Set everything at 1.25 unless you're dealing with DIN HP ratings or some systemic crap like that - use the spreadsheet that I spent 100 hours working on as the starting point and you're halfway done. Apply any different math to entire generations/types of car; not individual cases.

4. Sign a pledge that says "on track performance will be considered as a trigger for alternate multipliers when same make/model ITB car wins 80% of the IT races in the nation, if and only if no other example of the same make/model finish anywhere in the lowest 20% of finishers in any same race." We have made "overdog" way low of a bar.

5. Apply the same practices to additions/changes to the other classes.

6. Go racing.

The point is that you do NOT have to go looking for dyno sheets and do all that song and dance unless you have TRULY COMPELLING evidence of a major system failure at the standard multipliers. The Process ALLOWS that; it does not compel you to do it. And we simply don't have the sample size to make any well founded judgments re: specs anyway. I fear that we are chasing compliance with the ITCS weight specs as often as not.

Set IT free.

K

[gran racing]

Honestly, put my car at 25%, put it at 30%, I am silly enough to think it can be made up at this level by the driver. Like others said get it close. Excuses why we suck... :)

[coreyehcx]

Kirk, do you think #4 would have people more frustrated and looking to move to other classes? Some people might not want to wait for that to get cleared up after a year of certain cars dominating. I guess it would depend on how swiftly the fixes would happen based off your revamped rules.

I know this goes back to the "The car you chose to race" and "no guarantee of competitiveness", "driver talent".

I do appreciate the work you guys do the more I follow it all, obviously due to my own investments in ITB.

[jjjanos]

I am serious about this. ITB takes up TOO....MUCH...TIME. As a result, we don't get bigger picture stuff done and don't work on the other classes. R needs some corrections. C needs a hard look. We need to start looking at forced induction.

Well excuse ITB. Y'all made it a mess, so y'all need to clean it up. Y'all starting classifying cars using lower gains and don't expect the guys who got classified using 35% or 40% gains to bitch? Yeah, that's a realistic world view. :rolleyes: Some huge preponderance of the work y'all need to do is ITB and ITC. You locked down ITC, so yeah, ITB is going to take almost all of your time. Lock down ITB and ITC is going to seem to be taking "too much time."

Forced induction? What happened to rules stability?


None of that gets touched because we have to argue about 30 year old Audi microfiches. I suppose it must be done, but I'll be honest -- I think the class as a whole could use with a bit more relaxation, more racing, and less 'weight advocacy.'Y'all tossed out the gut feeling approach and went formulaic. Well, now you've got a bunch of popular and once popular cars misclassified and their owners know the cars are misclassified. What did you expect?

[Harvey]

Its ITB and or ITC, the UNIMPORTANT classes.

[mossaidis]

This thread "is hotter than a whore house on nickel night." Keep the comments constructive and please, please, please thank the ITAC and remember it's a volunteer club organization. ok... back to drinking wine for me.

[Ed Funk]

This thread "is hotter than a whore house on nickel night." Keep the comments constructive and please, please, please thank the ITAC and remember it's a volunteer club organization. ok... back to drinking wine for me.

Is it that Greek rot-gut?

[JeffYoung]

Well excuse ITB. Y'all made it a mess, so y'all need to clean it up. Y'all starting classifying cars using lower gains and don't expect the guys who got classified using 35% or 40% gains to bitch? Yeah, that's a realistic world view. :rolleyes: Some huge preponderance of the work y'all need to do is ITB and ITC. You locked down ITC, so yeah, ITB is going to take almost all of your time. Lock down ITB and ITC is going to seem to be taking "too much time."

Forced induction? What happened to rules stability?

Y'all tossed out the gut feeling approach and went formulaic. Well, now you've got a bunch of popular and once popular cars misclassified and their owners know the cars are misclassified. What did you expect?

You remain one of the most myopic people I know. These same issues exist in C, A, S and to a lesser extent R.

And yet, the ITB group remains the most vocal and the most timeconsuming of the bunch. And for the most part, the ones most likely to play the "I'm packing up my ball and going home card" if they don't immediately get what they want.

Breathe. Relax. It's club racing. Everyone else is having fun. You can too!

[JeffYoung]

Its ITB and or ITC, the UNIMPORTANT classes.

Far better than most folks, you know that's not the case (at least on the ITAC).

[jjjanos]

You remain one of the most myopic people I know. These same issues exist in C, A, S and to a lesser extent R.

1. Your (singular) capacity to stick to a theme despite all evidence and commentary shredding the thesis of that theme is amazing. Either ignore the rebuttal and continue with the mantra or ignore that you raised the point. Kudos to you sir. :happy204:
2. You don't know me and you din't know Jack Kennedy either.
3. Sigh, I had assumed that as a member of the ITAC, you would be aware of this, but I should know better about you. 100lbs on a B car is a larger problem than the same weight on a A, S or R car.
4. It isn't the same problem in R. The R cars either don't exist or are in far fewer absolute numbers.
5. It isn't the same problem in A. Why bitch about your car being 200-lbs over weight if your car isn't a Miata?
6. It's your (collective) own damn fault. How much time was wasted on the MR2 because y'all couldn't convince the "it's an FA motor" jack-asses that Prod =! IT. If y'all aren't getting to an ITR request for classification/correction because you are dealing with ITB requests -- too damn bad. The request from ITR is no different than the request from ITB -- they are member requests. They should be dealt with FIFO.

[ShelbyRacer]

Quit trying so hard. Seriously. The first step toward failure is trying to "get it right." Get it somewhere sort of, kind of, mostly in the same ballpark and call it good.

When someone gets the idea that y'all are going to strive for the Truth, it sets up completely unrealistic expectations and just encourages bad behavior. It's enabling all of the paddock and board BS.

1. Do B over from scratch.

2. IGNORE all of the things you think you "know" vis-a-vis on-track competitiveness.

3. Set everything at 1.25 unless you're dealing with DIN HP ratings or some systemic crap like that - use the spreadsheet that I spent 100 hours working on as the starting point and you're halfway done. Apply any different math to entire generations/types of car; not individual cases.

4. Sign a pledge that says "on track performance will be considered as a trigger for alternate multipliers when same make/model ITB car wins 80% of the IT races in the nation, if and only if no other example of the same make/model finish anywhere in the lowest 20% of finishers in any same race." We have made "overdog" way low of a bar.

5. Apply the same practices to additions/changes to the other classes.

6. Go racing.

The point is that you do NOT have to go looking for dyno sheets and do all that song and dance unless you have TRULY COMPELLING evidence of a major system failure at the standard multipliers. The Process ALLOWS that; it does not compel you to do it. And we simply don't have the sample size to make any well founded judgments re: specs anyway. I fear that we are chasing compliance with the ITCS weight specs as often as not.

Set IT free.

K

Kirk, I know this is about where I am philosophically. I believe the rest of the ITAC is in a similar place.

1. B and R are in dire need. We're looking into doing exactly this.

2. I don't know anything (said only half in jest), so we're good there.

3. Yes. I just got a spreadsheet. I assume it's either the one you made or a version of it. I'm learning a lot, not only about IT, but about Excel (and I *thought* I knew quite a bit about both). I agree that any variances need to be based on overall architecture, not specific "problems".

4. Understood. I'm not sure I've personally encountered this yet, being new.

5. That's the plan.

6. Damn, I hope so.

[Harvey]

Far better than most folks, you know that's not the case (at least on the ITAC).

Yes I do, I also know that ITB and ITC in my opinion show a flaw in the process that no one will admit. The reason that I see thrown around about the cheated up cars is not a valid reason either, it was based on assumption and we all know what that will do for us.

[Greg Amy]

Final November Fastrack is out:
http://www.scca.com/assets/12-fastrack-nov1.pdf

November GCR:
http://www.scca.com/assets/2012GCR-updatedNovember.pdf

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

Updated recommended rules changes; board meets next month?
http://www.scca.com/assets/Recommended%20Rule%20Changes%20for%20BoD%20approva l.2012.pfr.pdf

[Ed Funk]

Final November Fastrack is out:
http://www.scca.com/assets/12-fastrack-nov1.pdf

November GCR:
http://www.scca.com/assets/2012GCR-updatedNovember.pdf

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

Updated recommended rules changes; board meets next month?
http://www.scca.com/assets/Recommended%20Rule%20Changes%20for%20BoD%20approva l.2012.pfr.pdf

Thought you were supposed to be enduring.

[JeffYoung]

Quit trying so hard. Seriously. The first step toward failure is trying to "get it right." Get it somewhere sort of, kind of, mostly in the same ballpark and call it good.

When someone gets the idea that y'all are going to strive for the Truth, it sets up completely unrealistic expectations and just encourages bad behavior. It's enabling all of the paddock and board BS.

1. Do B over from scratch.

2. IGNORE all of the things you think you "know" vis-a-vis on-track competitiveness.

3. Set everything at 1.25 unless you're dealing with DIN HP ratings or some systemic crap like that - use the spreadsheet that I spent 100 hours working on as the starting point and you're halfway done. Apply any different math to entire generations/types of car; not individual cases.

4. Sign a pledge that says "on track performance will be considered as a trigger for alternate multipliers when same make/model ITB car wins 80% of the IT races in the nation, if and only if no other example of the same make/model finish anywhere in the lowest 20% of finishers in any same race." We have made "overdog" way low of a bar.

5. Apply the same practices to additions/changes to the other classes.

6. Go racing.

The point is that you do NOT have to go looking for dyno sheets and do all that song and dance unless you have TRULY COMPELLING evidence of a major system failure at the standard multipliers. The Process ALLOWS that; it does not compel you to do it. And we simply don't have the sample size to make any well founded judgments re: specs anyway. I fear that we are chasing compliance with the ITCS weight specs as often as not.

Set IT free.

K

THat's the thing though. I think the very few outliers we have to deal with -- the Audi, the MR2, the Volvos -- make it seem like we are trying so hard to get it right on the money. When in reality the idea is get it close and let folks race.

Yeah, 50 lbs matters. Yeah it matters more in ITB. But would it prevent me from making a car choice as a result? I guess it could, but lots of other stuff WITHIN THE DRIVER'S control matters more.

I think most of the ITAC, no all of us really, does just about that above. Where it gets screwy is on the 25% default rule. If we have evidence -- and on track creeps in sometimes although I can't say we've ever made a change based on it -- then it can be hard to ignore.

If you have 7/8 dyno plots on a particular car not making 25%, a single car, do you just ignore it? I don't think you can as you lose just as much credibility that way.

I still think how we operate the process internally is correct although it may look a bit wonky externally.

And yeah, JJJ, you need to chill out and race more dude. If 50 lbs matters that much to you, you are in the wrong class. Seriously.

[gran racing]

I do not doubt that the ITAC has spend a considerable amount of time on ITB for a while now. How many changes have been made over the past year or two in ITB as far as car classification changes? It's probably just me not noticing the large number, but it's seemed fairly small. Is this incorrect? Any idea how many adjustments have been made?

[Greg Amy]

Thought you were supposed to be enduring.
Leaving early in the AM. First qually isn't until something like 5:30 PM Friday. - GA

[jjjanos]

Yeah, 50 lbs matters. Yeah it matters more in ITB. But would it prevent me from making a car choice as a result? I guess it could, but lots of other stuff WITHIN THE DRIVER'S control matters more.

The people complaining aren't making a car choice. They already made the choice. Then the rules were changed and what they perceived as parity did too. I didn't pick my car because I thought it could win. I picked my car because one was available and I know a Honda guy.


And yeah, JJJ, you need to chill out and race more dude. If 50 lbs matters that much to you, you are in the wrong class. Seriously.

You'll note that I have not asked for weight to come off my car -- though were my car still 160 lbs too heavy, I too would be asking.

If you are serious about locking down the rules, then what else is there for the ITAC to do then clean-up the mess left by the previous rules adjustment?

[JeffYoung]

We are doing it.

But we do need to start looking at the next class above R. R caps out at 240 stock hp right now which, if you haven't noticed, is basically what a stripped Kia sedan will get you.

If we don't have a new class in place in 5 years, we are struggling for relevancy again. I don't consider that instability. Not a rules change. Now, part and parcel with that though is FI because so many new cars are FI. We are going to have to deal with that at some point.

Beyond that, NO MORE fundamental changes. Or even minor ones.

THe problem remains that B consumes so much time putting out fires that we can't work on big picture stuff. And those fires come from membership.

S, R, A, C all have the same issues B does. R has a more fundamental problem in fact, in that the bogey car used wasn't in the sweet spot of the weights, but at the low end.

But those guys are building and racing their cars and not screaming on the internet about constant injustices.

[Chip42]

What Jeff said. the next level of IT must be identified and codified, and it will likely include FI cars. if it does not, it will not capture alot of the forthcoming cars that "should" fit into IT.

so we have to figure that out. and direct injection vs. process gains and modifiecations. in part, the industry needs to catch up (Engine Management solutions for GDI motors are not nearly as common or affordable as regular EFI)

I race B. I like B a lot. between TrackSpeed and our clostest friends, we have 8 B cars (all MR2 or various hondas). so I'm VERY interested in getting B right. but I'm also interested in sorting out the category where needed, and thankfully it's a pretty balanced rule set and doesn't need a lot of attention other than the new class, which does, and making sure R is right and B is sorted. C is pretty much what it is, nothing new fits well, the process doesn't work right there, and no one complains, so we're inclined to just leave it alone "forever."

we can continue to accumulate data to fix B (we need help here!!), fix/unfix nearly the whole thing with a 25% or "REALLY WELL KNOWN, I PROMISE, HERE LOOK" reset, or just lock it down. what's preffered?

[Tristan Smith]

YES, some of us ITR guys are suffering, you insensitive ITB Bastards! :D:D:D

[Knestis]

Kirk, do you think #4 would have people more frustrated and looking to move to other classes? Some people might not want to wait for that to get cleared up after a year of certain cars dominating. I guess it would depend on how swiftly the fixes would happen based off your revamped rules. [Emphasis added]

I know this goes back to the "The car you chose to race" and "no guarantee of competitiveness", "driver talent".

I do appreciate the work you guys do the more I follow it all, obviously due to my own investments in ITB.

It's NOT about "warts and all." It's about the ITAC and the Club helping people to understand what "dominating" means. Drivers at one track watch one racer beat up on his local neighbors and call that 'dominating.' It's not. Or it IS, but it's about ONE driver/car/budget/tire/talent combination dominating, NOT one make/model.

The category cannot respond to local competitive conditions but instead has to make compromises to be the best it can be for an entire nation.

Look at the uproar over "turbo cars" in STU, on the heels of the RubOffs. Folks are talking about major changes to category rules, not just spec line item tweaks, in reaction to one race that legitimately included only a half dozen driver/car combinations. That's lunacy.

(See Gran's post on the previous page for a different, but very perceptive, perspective.)

And turbos in IT? That would be a ruinous, unholy mess, particularly if anyone is even REMOTELY thinking about balancing them with NA cars.

K

[Robbie]

And turbos in IT? That would be a ruinous, unholy mess, particularly if anyone is even REMOTELY thinking about balancing them with NA cars.

K

Given the number of cars that are coming with turbos what do you do to stay relevant?

[erlrich]

Given the number of cars that are coming with turbos what do you do to stay relevant?

Easy - you create a class just for turbos:smilie_pokal:

ITT anyone?

[StephenB]

Let the st guys figure that out ;)

Stephen

Kinda joking but serious.

[ShelbyRacer]

Let the st guys figure that out ;)




Did Greg put you up to that? (I'm KIDDING Greg- no rum-induced hate mail please...)

I'd personally LOVE to run my old turbo car in IT. I can tell you from experience, limited to IT mods and 1 bar of boost, I could make 240+ hp- I put down 208 to the front wheels (146 flywheel hp stock)- at 85% development. I'm pretty sure that 260hp is possible.

2.0 multiplier anyone?

It would be a good fit for R, but I tremble at the thought of trying to classify cars without completely screwing the pooch. SIR would be a viable option, but even then, ugh.

BTW- please take this all at the "talking out my ass" that it is at this point. We have to make sure we don't screw up the class now before we even look at new ways to screw it up.

[DavidM]

THat's the thing though. I think the very few outliers we have to deal with -- the Audi, the MR2, the Volvos -- make it seem like we are trying so hard to get it right on the money. When in reality the idea is get it close and let folks race.

Yeah, 50 lbs matters. Yeah it matters more in ITB. But would it prevent me from making a car choice as a result? I guess it could, but lots of other stuff WITHIN THE DRIVER'S control matters more.

I think most of the ITAC, no all of us really, does just about that above. Where it gets screwy is on the 25% default rule. If we have evidence -- and on track creeps in sometimes although I can't say we've ever made a change based on it -- then it can be hard to ignore.

If you have 7/8 dyno plots on a particular car not making 25%, a single car, do you just ignore it? I don't think you can as you lose just as much credibility that way.


How many dyno sheets does it take to move a car off the 25%? ;)

And for the record, I think every car in the ITCS should be run through at 25% unless there is compelling documentation and evidence to do so otherwise. Can't find those dyno sheets from 10 years ago, then they don't exist. Can't find that microfiche, it doesn't exist. The evidence has to exist today and can't be an e-mail of someone saying their friend saw a car on a dyno. It has to be documentable. I'm not sure if this is what Dr. K's spreadsheet was about, but if it was then I'm all for it.

[Knestis]

Given the number of cars that are coming with turbos what do you do to stay relevant?

You write rules for a category without turbos. It's not necessary for IT to capture every car out there.

K

[pfcs]

"To refresh everyone....
What we have is a case of multiple (and findable) sources that list 110 and a microfiche (and unfindable) source that lists 120, correct?
- Is the microfiche for an unmodified US car as sold in the US?
- What is the source of the microfiche (factory publication? trade magazine?)
- What is the citation for the microfiche so that those with an axe to grind can go to a research library and do some digging?
- Was the 120 BHP, SAE Gross, SAE Net or SAE certified?"

"Can't find that microfiche, it doesn't exist. "

The truth about this was put out to this community from several members.
This repetition of the "microfiche" untruth reminds me of this election season-if you repeat misinformation enough, it will become the truth.
The 120hp specification for the Coupe motor is found in the VW/Audi factory dealer parts information system known as EKTA, which is disseminated to every factory authorized VW and Audi dealer in the US and exists as a digital file on their computer systems.
It is the only system the factory provides authorized service and parts departments to use for parts ordering/identification purposes. It also lists all engine and transmission codes, including certain specifications and applicability, as well as many other minutia needed to understand what fits what and when it was in production, etc. Many people involved in the service and repair of VAG vehicles, like Phils Foreign Car Service, or VAG parts re-sellers, or VAG car developers, have acquired bootleg copies of the files because they are the latest, official factory information. AFAIK, the information from the engine spec section can be printed from my computer just as any parts illustrations and accompanying printed info can be and I would gladly do for any who's interested if it's possible.

And on another planet, far away...... You're collectively killing this class with a death of a thousand cuts. I reluctantly approved of the attempts to quantify performance using "the process", but feared it would come to this bullshit. Everyone and His Highness' Royal (RIGHT) opinion screaming for attention! And whoever is the loudest gets listened to. A long time ago I opined that this "club" should be ruled by an enlightened dictatorship. That's still true.
If the most vocal of you spent half the energy you spend on this forum and put it into learning and pursuing car development/tuning, you would be a lot faster and satisfied!

[StephenB]

"To refresh everyone....
What we have is a case of multiple (and findable) sources that list 110 and a microfiche (and unfindable) source that lists 120, correct?
- Is the microfiche for an unmodified US car as sold in the US?
- What is the source of the microfiche (factory publication? trade magazine?)
- What is the citation for the microfiche so that those with an axe to grind can go to a research library and do some digging?
- Was the 120 BHP, SAE Gross, SAE Net or SAE certified?"

"Can't find that microfiche, it doesn't exist. "

The truth about this was put out to this community from several members.
This repetition of the "microfiche" untruth reminds me of this election season-if you repeat misinformation enough, it will become the truth.
The 120hp specification for the Coupe motor is found in the VW/Audi factory dealer parts information system known as EKTA, which is disseminated to every factory authorized VW and Audi dealer in the US and exists as a digital file on their computer systems.
It is the only system the factory provides authorized service and parts departments to use for parts ordering/identification purposes. It also lists all engine and transmission codes, including certain specifications and applicability, as well as many other minutia needed to understand what fits what and when it was in production, etc. Many people involved in the service and repair of VAG vehicles, like Phils Foreign Car Service, or VAG parts re-sellers, or VAG car developers, have acquired bootleg copies of the files because they are the latest, official factory information. AFAIK, the information from the engine spec section can be printed from my computer just as any parts illustrations and accompanying printed info can be and I would gladly do for any who's interested if it's possible.

And on another planet, far away...... You're collectively killing this class with a death of a thousand cuts. I reluctantly approved of the attempts to quantify performance using "the process", but feared it would come to this bullshit. Everyone and His Highness' Royal (RIGHT) opinion screaming for attention! And whoever is the loudest gets listened to. A long time ago I opined that this "club" should be ruled by an enlightened dictatorship. That's still true.
If the most vocal of you spent half the energy you spend on this forum and put it into learning and pursuing car development/tuning, you would be a lot faster and satisfied!


FYI Phil, I corrected many things that you posted in 2009 however you did also post a picture of the microfiche file but that has been removed. Feel free to re-post it if you can get access to it. Back in 2009 I was upset at the reason. One reason was tourque, another was on track performance, another was that it wasn't allowed per the rules in the GCR, never ever was it because of the 120HP rating. Now that the ITAC took the time to relook the data over and stands behind that 120HP reading as the reason I support them. If anyone decides to quote that... understand that I also support Obama as president, but I am not voting for him... support is different than agreeing with someone. :) No disrespect for anyone on the ITAC or CRB, my hope is that you recognize that I really do support your decision and appreciate the time you put into making that decision even if I disagree with it. The great thing about a collective group of civil people is that they may not all agree on everything but they still live in peace and support one another! (ya ya I know I wasn't that civil back in 2009!)

Also wanted to comment on the Turbo thing as I just posted a quick comment from my phone earlier. Honestly I don't think IT is the place for them. We have enough issues and honestly I do think that the ST ruleset will accomodate those types of cars. Let SCCA as a club stay "relevant" using the ST ruleset and lets stay as the class we are. I don't think we need to change just yet. If we REALLY want turbo cars with the same base ruleset then make a class just for them, no mixing them in. But realize if we add another IT class all it is going to do is make our fields that much smaller.


Stephen
Stephen

[Rabbit05]

"To refresh everyone....
What we have is a case of multiple (and findable) sources that list 110 and a microfiche (and unfindable) source that lists 120, correct?
- Is the microfiche for an unmodified US car as sold in the US?
- What is the source of the microfiche (factory publication? trade magazine?)
- What is the citation for the microfiche so that those with an axe to grind can go to a research library and do some digging?
- Was the 120 BHP, SAE Gross, SAE Net or SAE certified?"

"Can't find that microfiche, it doesn't exist. "

The truth about this was put out to this community from several members.
This repetition of the "microfiche" untruth reminds me of this election season-if you repeat misinformation enough, it will become the truth.
The 120hp specification for the Coupe motor is found in the VW/Audi factory dealer parts information system known as EKTA, which is disseminated to every factory authorized VW and Audi dealer in the US and exists as a digital file on their computer systems.
It is the only system the factory provides authorized service and parts departments to use for parts ordering/identification purposes. It also lists all engine and transmission codes, including certain specifications and applicability, as well as many other minutia needed to understand what fits what and when it was in production, etc. Many people involved in the service and repair of VAG vehicles, like Phils Foreign Car Service, or VAG parts re-sellers, or VAG car developers, have acquired bootleg copies of the files because they are the latest, official factory information. AFAIK, the information from the engine spec section can be printed from my computer just as any parts illustrations and accompanying printed info can be and I would gladly do for any who's interested if it's possible.

And on another planet, far away...... You're collectively killing this class with a death of a thousand cuts. I reluctantly approved of the attempts to quantify performance using "the process", but feared it would come to this bullshit. Everyone and His Highness' Royal (RIGHT) opinion screaming for attention! And whoever is the loudest gets listened to. A long time ago I opined that this "club" should be ruled by an enlightened dictatorship. That's still true.
If the most vocal of you spent half the energy you spend on this forum and put it into learning and pursuing car development/tuning, you would be a lot faster and satisfied!


Phil,
Sorry I have produced a couple of Factory documents .One of which was/is used by dealerships..and one supplied by the said manufacturer to the mass that bought said car. ..So does ONE piece of evidence carry more water over TWO plus sources ?? Not in my book...

Everyone,

And I have contacted the dyno place , Jeff was right, it's around $200 bucks ,which I dont have . And from what was mentioned earlier from Andy and/or Jeff , that these dyno numbers would have little to to no matter anyways. So why should i spend money I dont have on information that wont matter ?

All in all I feel that it is fear about the Audi . This is another 10+ page thread about a car that maybe 5 people in the country own , but yet is being perceived upon that it will be the "Miata" of ITB and destroy the class . Which is laughable.

And does anyone have any of the CRB's emails so I can request a copy of the microfiche ?

[JeffYoung]

I will pay for your dyno time.

[ShelbyRacer]

And does anyone have any of the CRB's emails so I can request a copy of the microfiche ?

Should still be [email protected], but I know most of the correspondence goes through the online system nowadays.

While I don't have individual email addresses to give, I can tell you that if you login on the SCCA page using your member number and password, look under the Resources tab for the Directory, and you'll find contact phone numbers for everyone on the CRB...

[Flyinglizard]

Where is the Audi located?
We get 3-4 runs for 50$. I take 2 cars most of the time.

[JeffYoung]

Northeast.

[Ron Earp]

No kidding. I'll pay for Audi ITB dyno time if it'll but this damn issue to bed. That and MR2s, seems the ITAC is consumed by them.

[erlrich]

Where is the Audi located?
We get 3-4 runs for 50$. I take 2 cars most of the time.

I was going to say (not that it really matters) that we have a couple of shops in this area that advertise "3 pulls for $75", or something like that. Last time I did any tuning (admittedly 4-5 years ago) it was like $100-$150/hr.

[gran racing]

I'll pay for Audi ITB dyno time if it'll but this damn issue to bed.

How would it? If the dyno says 90 HP, what does that number mean? Since the car has not seen a significant amount of develpment, I won't be at all surprised if the HP numbers are low. I could not believe how much gains were seen from dyno tuning and testing. Then a professionally built motor, transmission, and so forth.

"Best case" in terms of putting this issue to bed is it comes out at 110 HP or so. Then it validates to many that the 120 stock number is accurate.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mr Blethen and I have been in touch on the dyno time. If he wants to bring it, we will get it done. The issue is simple. No disrespect to their 'program' at all but these dyno sheets would have ZERO value. For cars that have NEVER been on the dyno, there has been ZERO development. What header? What intake? What allowances taken advantage of? No programmable ECU. Why in the world would you want a piece of data like this?

Makes no sense to me.

It would be the equivalent of me (ITA Miata) bolting on eBay parts to a crate motor with the stock ECU and giving you the dyno plot and expecting you to use it as a data point. Worthless time and money unless there is an effort to grow power, try new parts and install a PECU.

[quadzjr]

Late to the party, (new job responsibility is all time consuming). I have worked with 3 different ITAC's trying to fix the weight of the MR2. I have been told everything from just wait, not now, build it and let us know, submit what you have, etc..

This task has been all time consuming and expensive. Even purchasing engineering papers from SAE on the development and design of the motor to show EXACTLY why it is limited in IT trim and what Toyota did on following generations to fix it.

For the one MR2 at road America.. I would like to talk to the person. Just listening to the guy that was helping him and was the one finding the loop holes.. Just listening to him talk I was thinking.. that is illegal, that is illegal, that is illegal. Whether or not they are on this car or not.. I do not know.


Yes I was on pole at SIC, and got motored by on the straight EVERY lap. In which case I have no defense as I am not going to do some SM swerving. Once they are in front they can just park it in front of me and I have no ability to get back around. FYI of the cars at the SIC the A2 VW was by far the fastest of us in a straight line.

However, this is still a moot point. An accord, a mustang, and a Celica (that I have not seen in some time). all have run laps 2SECONDS faster per lap than the group of us were running. 2 seconds at RRR is ridiculous!!

Also take those same cars at CMP.. just a few months prior the guy I was racing and were all in a few tenths of each other at RRR I was 2 seconds back per lap. He was on old hoosiers and I was on brand new Hankook C71 (autocross compound). Horse for course.

This has been an exercise in patience. Is the car right? no.. I sit closer? yes. Will it net me the seconds I need at other tracks? no.. Still need torque to do that. My MR2 is still a few hundred lbs heavier than a car with a very similar hp (ex-underwoods civic).

Thank you again ITAC members.. I will continue to develop and work on my project. Like I promised I will report back with any new data that exceeds my current numbers. I do not want to hide anything.

[jjjanos]

Re:Audi and a dyno.

Perhaps I am mistaken... but isn't the stock HP number the issue and not the IT-trim motor? If that's the case, how would a dyno of a motor that has had any modifications illuminate the answer?

Thank you for giving the source. It still leaves unanswered the question as to how the document is measuring horsepower and whether the engines were sold in the US in the car. Using wiki, there were 4 different engines in the car:

HY= 134 BHP less 15% = 114HP
JT= 119 BHP less 15% = 101HP
KV = 131 BHP less 15% = 111HP
KX = 118 BHP. less 15% = 100HP

According to www.audiworld.com, the 84 version had 100 HP (SAE net) which corresponds to... 119BHP. And if that easily could have been 120BHP in the source.

But the Audi is a red herring. The CRB has ruled by decree on it. The larger issue is does anyone know where I can find either a Geo Prism GSi, Isuzu Stylus or Geo Storm GSi that I can convert into an ITB car?

[Andy Bettencourt]

If the ITAC had as much solid data on the Audi as it does on the Miata or the MR2, they could set the weight based on the number that REALLY matters - crank HP in IT prep. This is especially applicable when the validity of the stock HP number is in dispute like it is here; is over-rated (RX-8) or under-rated (E36 325. CRX Si).

And count on this: If the ITAC goes through ITB - the Geo with the 130/140hp motor ain't gonna be in ITB for much longer...it's an ITA car all day long.



Re:Audi and a dyno.

Perhaps I am mistaken... but isn't the stock HP number the issue and not the IT-trim motor? If that's the case, how would a dyno of a motor that has had any modifications illuminate the answer?

Thank you for giving the source. It still leaves unanswered the question as to how the document is measuring horsepower and whether the engines were sold in the US in the car. Using wiki, there were 4 different engines in the car:

HY= 134 BHP less 15% = 114HP
JT= 119 BHP less 15% = 101HP
KV = 131 BHP less 15% = 111HP
KX = 118 BHP. less 15% = 100HP

According to www.audiworld.com (http://www.audiworld.com), the 84 version had 100 HP (SAE net) which corresponds to... 119BHP. And if that easily could have been 120BHP in the source.

But the Audi is a red herring. The CRB has ruled by decree on it. The larger issue is does anyone know where I can find either a Geo Prism GSi, Isuzu Stylus or Geo Storm GSi that I can convert into an ITB car?

[Ron Earp]

Dyno a stock one?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dyno a stock one?

If the ITAC even believed that was the right way to go (it's almost a moot number) it might work on a new car but no way would you get a good number on a car that is almost 30 years old.

The number that matters is crank HP in IT trim so when there is dispute over the stock numbers validity, you need to go with a build example(s). If nobody is willing to do so, then they don't have much ground to stand on for a change.

[jjjanos]

And count on this: If the ITAC goes through ITB - the Geo with the 130/140hp motor ain't gonna be in ITB for much longer...it's an ITA car all day long.

Yeah, but with just a little bit of $ to prep it half-way into an IT car, you could show up at the ARRC and kick ITB-butt before the ITAC could fix it.

:eclipsee_steering:

[Ron Earp]

The number that matters is crank HP in IT trim so when there is dispute over the stock numbers validity, you need to go with a build example(s). If nobody is willing to do so, then they don't have much ground to stand on for a change.

Agree.

[Robbie]

Re:Audi and a dyno.

Perhaps I am mistaken... but isn't the stock HP number the issue and not the IT-trim motor? If that's the case, how would a dyno of a motor that has had any modifications illuminate the answer?

Thank you for giving the source. It still leaves unanswered the question as to how the document is measuring horsepower and whether the engines were sold in the US in the car. Using wiki, there were 4 different engines in the car:

HY= 134 BHP less 15% = 114HP
JT= 119 BHP less 15% = 101HP
KV = 131 BHP less 15% = 111HP
KX = 118 BHP. less 15% = 100HP

According to www.audiworld.com, the 84 version had 100 HP (SAE net) which corresponds to... 119BHP. And if that easily could have been 120BHP in the source.

But the Audi is a red herring. The CRB has ruled by decree on it. The larger issue is does anyone know where I can find either a Geo Prism GSi, Isuzu Stylus or Geo Storm GSi that I can convert into an ITB car?

There used to be a Storm racing at Summit Point. ;)

[Chip42]

the geo/isuzu twins and prism have been on my personal radar a LONG time, as have some of the old F2 3V/cyl mazdas (626, MX6, probe). if anyone sees these cars on track, let us know. they aren't processed correctly but haven't been a big issue because no one knows of any current examples. the GSi geos need lead if they are going to run ITB, plain and simple. Andy's right about them being more likely ITA cars. slowish ones, I'd bet, but ITA cars.

ron - MR2's are well dynoed and the issue has been put to bed (well, from the ITAC and CRB's perspective). unless someone finds more than 5whp over the best examples we've ever seen numbers on (~109whp), we're safe with the newly processed weight. I think you'll not be seeing changes there for a long time if ever.

[gran racing]

Time to be proactive on the Geo then. Get it classed right now before someone builds one, then gets bumped to an uncompetitive position in ITA.

[Andy Bettencourt]

140hp FWD hatch? ITA.

[erlrich]

the geo/isuzu twins and prism have been on my personal radar a LONG time, as have some of the old F2 3V/cyl mazdas (626, MX6, probe). if anyone sees these cars on track, let us know. they aren't processed correctly but haven't been a big issue because no one knows of any current examples. the GSi geos need lead if they are going to run ITB, plain and simple. Andy's right about them being more likely ITA cars. slowish ones, I'd bet, but ITA cars.


Ok, so this bugs me just a little bit (not directed specifically at you Chip, but since you brought it up...). So what, we're going to wait until someone puts the time and effort into building one of these, then re-class/re-weight the car?

[Rabbit05]

Re:Audi and a dyno.

Perhaps I am mistaken... but isn't the stock HP number the issue and not the IT-trim motor? If that's the case, how would a dyno of a motor that has had any modifications illuminate the answer?

Thank you for giving the source. It still leaves unanswered the question as to how the document is measuring horsepower and whether the engines were sold in the US in the car. Using wiki, there were 4 different engines in the car:

HY= 134 BHP less 15% = 114HP
JT= 119 BHP less 15% = 101HP
KV = 131 BHP less 15% = 111HP
KX = 118 BHP. less 15% = 100HP

According to www.audiworld.com (http://www.audiworld.com), the 84 version had 100 HP (SAE net) which corresponds to... 119BHP. And if that easily could have been 120BHP in the source.

But the Audi is a red herring. The CRB has ruled by decree on it. The larger issue is does anyone know where I can find either a Geo Prism GSi, Isuzu Stylus or Geo Storm GSi that I can convert into an ITB car?


The HY and KV are European motors ..the KX and JT are the US motors. The KX is a lower HP because of a crappy 5-1 exhaust mani...the JT is the same motor, internal wise as the KX, except it was in the AWD 4000s and it had a "header" type Exhaust manifold...5-3-1 .

The very early Coupes came with a WE motor ..which is rated at 100 hp.


So if any member has a HP dispute ..they need to have a motor built by a Pro shop ? How does one quailify a pro motor ? This is getting a bit crazy....it went form ok go dyno your car ...to" nooo yours isnt built enough, it wont be good enough info"..to... I need a PRO MOTOR built and dyno'ed out of the car ???

Is there a certain $$$ amount I have to spend...?

You see where this is going ?