Any news on ITB weights???

[AE86ITA]

Just out of curiosity, Anyone knows how the ITB weight recalculation is going?

Any hints,

[Chip42]

I'd like to tell you it's nearly done, but it is not. expect some updates soon, I promise.

[ShelbyRacer]

Yes, what he said.

I will freely admit that I've spent more time on my own car than on that project. Sorry.

I would think that any reprocess would probably not be implemented until 2014, pending completion by us and approval from the CRB. That said, I'd like to see it done during this year, so it can be put in place ASAP.

[Terry Hanushek]

Matt / ITAC


I would think that any reprocess would probably not be implemented until 2014, pending completion by us and approval from the CRB. That said, I'd like to see it done during this year, so it can be put in place ASAP.

I would think that to make it effective in 2014 that it should be approved by the BoD no later than their December meeting. Given the necessary competitor review time, CRB deliberations, negotiations, etc., there does not seem to be that much time to dawdle.

Terry

[Greg Amy]

Note that weight adjustments are allowed within the rules year.

- GA

[ShelbyRacer]

At this point, our plan is to go through the class in phases and discuss each item, and we've been gathing info to do that. We populated a spreadsheet a while back (thanks to previous ITACers for giving a decent starting point with an archive of info!) and have been trying to fill in the holes, using the divide and conquer method. I believe we'd like to send it to the CRB in packets so as not to overwhelm anyone and also to handle similar cars together for efficiency.

While I know we can adjust weights at any time, I (and I believe the rest of the ITAC) would prefer to do it between seasons if possible, so as to minimize any disruption for competitors.

Looking at what we have, I'd say we're about 25-30% done.

I'll try to update things as possible, as I'm not sure if our work would be noted at all in FasTrack until it's complete.

[Chip42]

It would definitely be in fastrack, but without a rules change (weight =/= rule) there likely would not be a "what do you think".

and yes, Terry is right that we are in deed running up short on time.

we're reviewing ITB because it's a mess of various ages of classification, technology, etc... and cars there often don't respond as well to the same published process inputs as a car from the past 20 years or so. there's also a lot of development knowledge to draw from in many cases.

It needs to be done because every new car classed further offset the balance toward those that "fit" the "as processed" class, and those that don't.

[Bill Miller]

Good job guys, keep up the good work. :023:

[Terry Hanushek]

Note that weight adjustments are allowed within the rules year.

I am aware that a weight adjustment is not a rule change subject to the rules season. It can be helpful to make a necessary adjustment to a car weight in real time. However, a project to review / adjust the weights of all of the cars in a class with its potential shift in class balance should be announced / approved at the end of the year for implementation in the following year.

This is simply an observation, not a suggestion that the ITAC is not making good project. It is a complex task.

Terry

[AE86ITA]

Since all the 4AG powered cars have a weight reduction coming(since the AW11 MR2), could that be taken care of before the rest of ITB?

[ShelbyRacer]

Since all the 4AG powered cars have a weight reduction coming(since the AW11 MR2), could that be taken care of before the rest of ITB?

Yes, that's one of the points of the project. During a reprocess, inconsistencies like that should be taken care of.

[lateapex911]

To my recollection, a sweeping reorg such as whats been discussed will require more time for the CRB. (than December '13). I'd suggest that it be done as a whole, (you all know this, I think), so the CRb can see the whole picture. I remember being told "August" on things like this by the CRB, if we wanted January action.
So, yea, unless things have changed up the line and they are muuuuch faster (Which would be GREAT!!! There are STILL some ITAC items in the old CRB drawers, I'd bet, LOL), 14 is a optimistic goal if you're looking at a 30% completion point currently.

[ShelbyRacer]

Well, just to be clear, the 30% we have "done" is the following-

A spreadsheet was "created" (cough*stolenfromKirk*cough)
Formulae were updated
All current data was loaded in it
Many of the "known" data points for stock HP and any adders were inserted
Much investigation was done to try to "fill in the blanks"
The task was presented to the ITAC
Work load to find missing info/confirm data/etc. was divided amongst the current ITAC members
Individual work has commenced

At this point, no presentation of data has been made to the CRB, and therefore nothing has been approved/denied/etc. It's all with us at this point.

Just want to be as detailed as I can, so that no one misinterprets anything :)

[AE86ITA]

Can anyone give us an update of the progress on this??

[Chip42]

keep your eye on fastrack. we're working on it but we aren't there yet.

[Knestis]

On a related note, are there any requests for new make/model options being considered for ITB...? I see that the '07-08 Fit and the Mitsubishi Lancer (I like that car) are listed. Anything else in the works?

K

[Chip42]

On a related note, are there any requests for new make/model options being considered for ITB...? I see that the '07-08 Fit and the Mitsubishi Lancer (I like that car) are listed. Anything else in the works?

K

none in the queue but submit away. right now NEW classifications are not a problem, its reclassifying that's causing us pain. old cars, old metrics, you know the drill.

and yeah, the 2.0L 16V lancer is going to be one to watch. it's processed 100% to the book at 25%, NOT 30%. lots of them out there for low money, gearbox is not horrible, handling should be on par with others (but one can always invoke smith's axiom if not), and parts availability should be there due to sharing a platform with the raliart and evo (if only non-USDM ones), and I think it will make good torque which I believe is what matters in IT everything else being equalish. I don't think it's going to have a hp advantage. at all.

[Bill Miller]

none in the queue but submit away. right now NEW classifications are not a problem, its reclassifying that's causing us pain. old cars, old metrics, you know the drill.

and yeah, the 2.0L 16V lancer is going to be one to watch. it's processed 100% to the book at 25%, NOT 30%. lots of them out there for low money, gearbox is not horrible, handling should be on par with others (but one can always invoke smith's axiom if not), and parts availability should be there due to sharing a platform with the raliart and evo (if only non-USDM ones), and I think it will make good torque which I believe is what matters in IT everything else being equalish. I don't think it's going to have a hp advantage. at all.


Does that mean you're going to re-process the other ITB/C multi-valve cars at 25%? Also, if you're dropping a 2.0 16v car that makes 120hp and 130 lb-ft into ITB, doesn't that pave the way for some other ITA cars to move to ITB? The 1.8 16v VW's are what immediately jumped to my mind.

[Robbie]

Does that mean you're going to re-process the other ITB/C multi-valve cars at 25%? Also, if you're dropping a 2.0 16v car that makes 120hp and 130 lb-ft into ITB, doesn't that pave the way for some other ITA cars to move to ITB? The 1.8 16v VW's are what immediately jumped to my mind.

The Lancer is a heavy car.

[Chip42]

The Lancer is a heavy car.

this, mostly - it's all about power to weight, the cars go where they fit best, or where we think people will be happiest all around when we have options. in the case of the lancer, it would be ~370lbs lighter in ITA, so it fit better in B.

and bill - all cars are being reviewed. I can promise that some 16v cars will stay as they are, others will change. weights in general might move around as we focus in on what the cars can actually do or what their "corrected" power ratings are, with weight via process.

[AE86ITA]

Ok is September alreary, do we have any news ee can chew on?

[Chip42]

Not done yet. I know it's frustrating and I kinda wish we hadn't let the cat out of the bag ahead of being done. we ARE working on it, and yes, we appreciate that it is late in the year and close to the 2014 rules season.

[gran racing]

Not to be an ass, but it has been several years in the making. What's one more? And I know there are "reasons" and it's not this ITAC or the last ITAC's fault.

[JeffYoung]

My personal opinion is that it will be 2015 before you see any significant changes, based on what happened the first time around with this stuff.

[Knestis]

LOL - based on what happened last time, you'll submit the list, and it will be on like Donkey Kong. The chit will go DOWN, bra... :D

K

[callard]

I think I'll just pick a weight and post it on the sides of my car. Who's to know?????

[Gregg]

As long as it matches what you put in DLB, you're good to go, Chuck. :023:

[ShelbyRacer]

Just make sure it's neat and clean (or perhaps use the weight decal to cover a minor imperfection...). Sorry, you know I had to.

[Chip42]

LOL - based on what happened last time, you'll submit the list, and it will be on like Donkey Kong. The chit will go DOWN, bra... :D

K

given the protectionist streak that the PTB seem to have on ITB, you're probably VERY correct. that and the attractiveness of a stable rule set and resistance to changes of any kind by many has a lot of inertia and is hard to nudge.

[Andy Bettencourt]

...the attractiveness of a stable rule set and resistance to changes of any kind by many has a lot of inertia and is hard to nudge.

This is where some of us get our panties in a bunch. The rules can be stable (which I think they are for the most part) but if you don't apply the rules evenly then all that work is moot. The Corvette got porked and ITB has been treading water. The PTB need to believe in the system and allow the 'fixes'. If they don't want to, then tell the ITAC and let them decide if the time they put in using the system they believe in is worth it.

[Chip42]

let me be clear that right now, the delay is within the ITAC. but we are just the first hurdle. take the rest of the above as you will.

[Andy Bettencourt]

let me be clear that right now, the delay is within the ITAC. but we are just the first hurdle. take the rest of the above as you will.

The ITB realign is a monumental task and I would expect it to take a shit-ton of months. Keep on keeping on.

[JeffYoung]

LOL - based on what happened last time, you'll submit the list, and it will be on like Donkey Kong. The chit will go DOWN, bra... :D

K

Troof. Things are a bit better now but some of this will be a huge battle....

[JeffYoung]

This is where some of us get our panties in a bunch. The rules can be stable (which I think they are for the most part) but if you don't apply the rules evenly then all that work is moot. The Corvette got porked and ITB has been treading water. The PTB need to believe in the system and allow the 'fixes'. If they don't want to, then tell the ITAC and let them decide if the time they put in using the system they believe in is worth it.

Bzzzt. It got "porked" based on your interpretation of an adder/subtractor. System was applied, it's just the system was murky.

right now, I'd say the PTB believe in the system more than ever. But there will be difficult cases and there will be a LOT of them in ITB.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bzzzt. It got "porked" based on your interpretation of an adder/subtractor. System was applied, it's just the system was murky.

Let's not argue about it. It's the only car in ITR to get a DW adder. The system was applied with a blind eye to how the system was applied in the past. The way to make it fair to everyone was to class it like the rest of the cars and then collectively 'correct' the group if the ITAC felt as if a DW adder needed to actually be in place for ITR.


right now, I'd say the PTB believe in the system more than ever. But there will be difficult cases and there will be a LOT of them in ITB.

ITB has a whole host of issues that make it a very hard task. It will be a hard sell but I think this is the group who can do it.

[JeffYoung]

Well, not to dicker, but you brought up, and continue to do so.

*it's 50 lbs over in your view, which I think no one would rationally call porked;

*we followed the manual in classing it;

*there are a LOT of inconsistencies in R right now that are far worse and the mess with the DW adder will get fixed with them as well.

[quadzjr]

In the ITB talks can you please, please, please address torque. It might be hard to accomplish work in ITB (see 4AGE and the weight balance of accord). Both had/have significant resistance.

[lateapex911]

In the ITB talks can you please, please, please address torque. It might be hard to accomplish work in ITB (see 4AGE and the weight balance of accord). Both had/have significant resistance.

LAst time we did this ITB thing, the head of the CRB switched his opinion 180 degrees monthly, and decided that ENGINE DISPLACEMENT wasn't being applied properly.

half the ITAC resigned in protest, essentially.

So, adding another factor isn't likely to grease the progress.

Although, he liked displacement as a proxy for tq. So maybe you're onto something??

I think however, that Chip and Kirk are sadly accurate.

It seems to me that a good guy member who wants to help by working as a volunteer in a committee environment in the SCCA results in the volunteer eventually taking one of two paths:
1- fighting for the members, trying to do the right thing, running against the old guard, and eventually a line gets crossed and he says, "Hold on, this is crazy, So and so is screwing everyone for his own benefit, and you all are a bunch of liars covering up for him!!!", and POOF, out the door he goes....
or
2- Fighting for the members, growing weary of the charades, and winds up pushing just this side of "too hard", hedges on principal, and makes the best 'deals' he can, while not getting fired.

Not sure which is better. Probably 50/50. Certain issues need a 1, but others don't warrant it, and compromise is better than nothing, so 2 works.

But, both kinda suck.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well, not to dicker, but you brought up, and continue to do so.

*it's 50 lbs over in your view, which I think no one would rationally call porked;

*we followed the manual in classing it;

*there are a LOT of inconsistencies in R right now that are far worse and the mess with the DW adder will get fixed with them as well.

OK, I'll keep biting.

* More than 25% is not in the manual IIRC but was classed consistently with other V8's for power - can agree with that position
* DW adder was "followed" because of a mistake in the rewrite of the manual for ITR. So it stands alone in ITR as the only car with that weight penalty. It sits in limbo because of a mistake of either clerical nature and/or the idea that none of the ITAC remembered that the DW adder was never applied to those cars, only a strut/FWD subtractor which is unique to ITR as well.

In the first case the manual was not used in favor of consistency and in the second the manual was used without thought or knowledge of consistency. This is my point.

The ITR inconsistencies largely stem from a 'best guess' on HP multipliers. The committee that put that cut together did on a spreadsheet with all the calculations for each car. That sheet should be in the committees possession. If not, I can probably help getting them a copy.

I am sure the ITAC is doing the same thing with ITB. I would figure the biggest hurdle would be to determine an agreed upon set of multipliers to get everyone to a standardized 'stock' hp figure before even applying manual-based multipliers and adders. Then the list in ITB might even be the largest class of all.

[jjjanos]

Ok is September alreary, do we have any news ee can chew on?http://humor.beecy.net/misc/hellfrozeover/hell-froze-over.jpg

[Andy Bettencourt]

I honestly can't think of a project bigger than this ITB redo guys. I am sure they are in the midst of hashing out a huge spreadsheet car by car going over each one making sure that they are confident that they can defend any and all recommendations to the CRB once it gets into their hands. Give it time, it will be worth it.

[Knestis]

I honestly can't think of a project bigger than this ITB redo guys. I am sure they are in the midst of hashing out a huge spreadsheet car by car going over each one making sure that they are confident that they can defend any and all recommendations to the CRB once it gets into their hands. ...

...which, having put a lot of hours myself into that very process, I am confident is also the root cause of its inevitable failure.

(Note here that the spreadsheet we used while I was on the ITAC, and that I subsequently shared with replacement members, is actually an evolution of the first "MILLER RATIO" worksheet that I started when I was still at UVa working on my dissertation, and looking toward building another IT car - and when the World Trade Center was still a feature on the Manhattan skyline.)

The PTBs are going to object to some detail in that proposal and use it to scuttle the entire effort. The last harangue was catalyzed by the Audi Coupe but this time it will be SOMETHING - unless there's been an earth-shattering see change in the Club management.

If the culture of protectionism and micromanagement where the CRB meets the ITCS can't be changed, then there's no point in trying to perfect a "list" that is doomed to failure when a weight for one car on that list doesn't jive with one CRB member's preconceived notions of "on-track competitiveness."

The only viable solution will be, and always has been, to apply a repeatable and transparent system, with as few moving parts (variables, differences) as possible; and have it accepted by a Board that puts stability and consistency of the category above key individuals', well, individual differences - even if at the individual car level, it creates potential winners and losers. IF THE LATTER CAN'T BE ACHIEVED, THERE IS NO POINT TRYING TO PITCH THE FORMER and even less sense kidding ourselves - and wasting days, weeks, months, or YEARS of volunteer ITAC time.

Kirk (who's filling out Production VTS sheets knowing that as bad as Prod can get, it's really only different bad, not worse, than this)

[jjjanos]

1. Get list of every ITB car that has races in last 7 years. In theory, the home office should have this as they get copies of the official results. (IIRC)

2. Everything not on that list gets a contact SCCA note for its weight.

3. Everything else gets run through. No point wasting effort getting the correct classification weight on a car that hasn't raced since 1987.

4. Stand firm on list generated by #3. Make official the name of the higher-up and the specific objection. None of the double-dealing, two-faced, bullshit that created the Vichy ITAC.

[lateapex911]

4. Stand firm on list generated by #3. Make official the name of the higher-up and the specific objection. None of the double-dealing, two-faced, bullshit that created the Vichy ITAC.
Can you expound on that?? Not sure what you're driving at.

The first part, I get.
"Make official the name of the higher up and the specific objection".
Well, see, theres the thing. What if the higher up is the chairman of the CRB??? The king, whether he wears clothes or not, is still the king. (you like historical references, as I recall)

I can send you to the SCCA forum thread where the CRB chair Bob Dowie posted a 'explanation' regarding ITB the last go round. Now I LIKE Bob. He's a neat guy, and has gone WAY out of his way to help the SCCA, and lots of specific members, including myself.

But based on notes I had taken during ITAC meetings...and read back to Bob word for word during the meetings to be sure I had them transcribed accurately, Bobs explanation of the events surrounding the last ITB debacle, didn't line up with what I, Kirk, Andy, Scott, and...my notes....said actually happened on the con calls.

Bob said and did things of his own volition, and ignored previous protocols and procedures and promises.

Now, I am SURE he felt what he was doing was 'the right thing". And I felt I had to call him out on it, because I work for, ultimately, you, and the other members. I report to the CRB, but ultimately if I feel that the embers are getting screwed, then something has to give.

So anyway, I can link the thread, but I'm sure you've read it, even on SCCA.com...where NObody goes, LOL. Long and short of it was that I was told to GTFO, and it was obvious that I needed to resign. I called directors who looked into it, but it was really the first clearly scandalous thing on his watch, and he was done in less than a year anyway, so they "had a talk" with him, and that was that.

Half the ITAC resigned over the situation, but hey, it's just a dumb ole advisory committee. I'd wager 75% of the IT racers in the country had no idea that their advisory committee had been halved, and of those that did have some awareness, 75% of them were confused befuddled by whole thing.

So, while it's great to say (and I am 1000% behind 100% transparency) "name the names", in reality, you CAN name the name, you get fired, the ITAC has to regroup.....and 5% of the members you work for actually notice, and 2% actually care.

As Kirk says, we get the category we deserve.


Now, THAT said, I think that of all the categories, the ITAC has, under guys like Darin Jordan, and Andy Bettencourt, and Josh Sirota, done a HUGE job of moving a glacier, and while there have been some rifts formed along the way, the overall work done is tremendous. IT is in a MUCH MUCH MUCH better place today, than it was when Darin took over the ITAC, back at the turn of the century.

[Knestis]

...and I have an email (accidentally cc'd to me, though sent to someone who actually has a history of posting here) from Jim Drago, from about the same period of time, that completely misrepresents where the ITB classification process issues were coming from - again, directly to a member.

Paraphrasing (and this was after the preliminary ITB "list" was provided to the CRB through our liaison and concurrent with the cessation of all approvals of recommendations sent up by the ITAC), the explanation was that the ITAC was sitting on member requests, but that Jim would do what he could to personally help this member out with his problem...

Now, to be fair, it is an open question whether Drago - as a non-IT-focused CRB member - was getting a shaded/filtered view of the situation from those on the board who did manage IT business before that body. He may have been operating completely in good faith on bad information, but regardless it REALLY hammered the reality of the situation home for me. Color me glad to be gone at that point.

Kirk (who was pleased about Dick P's post-blow-up explanation that practice would change to assign individuals without vested interests to be CRB Ad Hoc liaisons; but wonders how that is working out)

[lateapex911]

.

Now, to be fair, it is an open question whether Drago - as a non-IT-focused CRB member - was getting a shaded/filtered view of the situation from those on the board who did manage IT business before that body. He may have been operating completely in good faith on bad information, but regardless it REALLY hammered the reality of the situation home for me. Color me glad to be gone at that point.

Kirk (who was pleased about Dick P's post-blow-up explanation that practice would change to assign individuals without vested interests to be CRB Ad Hoc liaisons; but wonders how that is working out)


I think Drago means well, and acts in good faith. BUT, there's a whole shit ton of back channel whos talking to who crap going on.
I was lambasted for "Speaking out of school" in regards to my public discussions regarding ITAC doings...
BUT, I'm of the mind that it is FAR better to be open and transparent with the members of a CLUB than it is to be discussing this stuff "in school" but behind committee members backs...the good ole boy crap.

And thats what the CRB at the time was doing. Sorry, it just was.
Members of the CRB with IT cars voting and forming ITB policy!?!?!?
Are you freaking KIDDING me!?!?!

Kirk, I'm right with you..thank the stars Dick Patullo is in position.....and while its unclear whether he's the catalyst for the change or reporting it, he's on the case and aware, which is a very good thing.

[JeffYoung]

Maybe difficult to believe but we really don't have the protectionist issues we had in the past, generally speaking. We got past the 30% issue in ITB, mostly fixed the MR2 and I *think* we can get past the other stuff with the Audi and others. As Kirk says, proof is in the pudding though.

"Vichy ITAC?" Jjanos is the Pants guy from the brown board right? That's about par for the course for him. Kirk/Jake/Andy did what they thought was right. I almost resigned as well and came close to being told to do so, but Josh impressed me with his leadership and impressed on me the need for us to stay on the committee to stay the course.

The result? Andy/Kirk/Jake made a statement and got attention of the higher ups, and got us the ability to do things like the Ops Manual.

[JeffYoung]

OK, I'll keep biting.

* More than 25% is not in the manual IIRC but was classed consistently with other V8's for power - can agree with that position
* DW adder was "followed" because of a mistake in the rewrite of the manual for ITR. So it stands alone in ITR as the only car with that weight penalty. It sits in limbo because of a mistake of either clerical nature and/or the idea that none of the ITAC remembered that the DW adder was never applied to those cars, only a strut/FWD subtractor which is unique to ITR as well.

In the first case the manual was not used in favor of consistency and in the second the manual was used without thought or knowledge of consistency. This is my point.

The ITR inconsistencies largely stem from a 'best guess' on HP multipliers. The committee that put that cut together did on a spreadsheet with all the calculations for each car. That sheet should be in the committees possession. If not, I can probably help getting them a copy.

I am sure the ITAC is doing the same thing with ITB. I would figure the biggest hurdle would be to determine an agreed upon set of multipliers to get everyone to a standardized 'stock' hp figure before even applying manual-based multipliers and adders. Then the list in ITB might even be the largest class of all.

We followed the manual in adding 50 lbs to the car. During the ITR fix (next after ITB), we'll address it. The ITR inconsistencies are all over place. Impossible to figure out, and then compounded by the fact the class came to be during the evolution of the process -- the torque adder, the FWD "percentage," etc.

I just wish you wouldn't claim that the "porking" of the ITR Corvette (a car you had a vested interest in) is some sort of evidence that the Process/Ops Manual isn't working. It is. The real issue is consistency and manipulation during the original development of the ITR classifications.

I can agree to chalk that up birthing pains for ITR and the Process. But I won't agree that the issues during that period somehow mean the Process isn't working now when it is working exactly as it was intended.

[lateapex911]

Maybe difficult to believe but we really don't have the protectionist issues we had in the past, generally speaking. We got past the 30% issue in ITB, mostly fixed the MR2 and I *think* we can get past the other stuff with the Audi and others. As Kirk says, proof is in the pudding though.

"Vichy ITAC?" Jjanos is the Pants guy from the brown board right? That's about par for the course for him. Kirk/Jake/Andy did what they thought was right. I almost resigned as well and came close to being told to do so, but Josh impressed me with his leadership and impressed on me the need for us to stay on the committee to stay the course.

The result? Andy/Kirk/Jake made a statement and got attention of the higher ups, and got us the ability to do things like the Ops Manual.

I met Josh out in the Bay area in '10. he's a sharp guy, as you know. I'd like to have half his sharpness!
I'm sure he's no fan of mine though, as he had to do triage after the three of us lobbed nasty words at the CRB. I felt bad leaving you guys. I really enjoyed my ITAC time. But I get idealistic, and i can not stand self serving people.

I'm REALLY glad that the protectionist issues have faded, but I'm still annoyed that they've faded on their own, as opposed to being taken care of properly. The stuff that went on that the CRB supported..nee promoted, was shameful.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I just wish you wouldn't claim that the "porking" of the ITR Corvette (a car you had a vested interest in) is some sort of evidence that the Process/Ops Manual isn't working. It is. The real issue is consistency and manipulation during the original development of the ITR classifications.


How do I have a vested interest in a car I don't own that a friend built in his garage on his own? I guess I am emotionally vested because we talked about what car to build and about what weight it could have been if it was classed at 25% and no DW adder (roughly 3035lbs with the 150 for tq)

So according to the Ops Man, it should have gotten 25%. It didn't. Why? Because there was a consistency issue to deal with. Again, I can buy that. Class everything like whats there then fix the WHOLE thing. I agree with that to some degree. But then the opposite happened with the DW. Ignoring consistency (or just the ignorance of ITR classification parameters) the Ops Man was followed (also largely to to a transcription error) to put weight on. See how that isn't right?

The Ops Manual only works if 1. it's correct and 2. you use it 100% of the time. I just don't see what the argument is here...and let's not mention 'it's only 50 lbs'. It's either 'right' or it's not.

Also, the term 'porking' sounded harsher than it was meant. It was tongue-in-cheek for weight that shouldn't be on the car, it any quantity 1lb or 100lbs.

on edit: I went back to look at why I even used the term...and it was about applying the rules evenly. We may disagree but I feel the Corvette could have gone in at 25%/no DW and should have gone in at 30% and no DW but it got both which to me is a simple 'can't have it both ways' scenario.

ITR will get cleaned up in due time but I can tell you that if you just go in blind at 25% the class is toast. I am sure validation on HP estimated will be done and not many changes will be made.

[JeffYoung]

How about you put up a dyno sheet and tell us what the car makes? That would answer the question on 25% v 30%.

That said, we treated the Corvette with 100% consistency vis a vis all other V8s. Because of a variety of factors, they are expected to make more than 25% because of....gasp!...what we know. And that's more than just a call to a single builder, which crippled the 300zx. ALL V8s in ITR get have gotten 30% based on research on gains, etc. Just like rotaries and so on.

No issue there.

The DW adder will be fixed so there is consistency across ITR.

It's just frustrating that a system that is working is being nitpicked for errors that occurred under another regime and that we are trying to correct.

[Andy Bettencourt]

How about you put up a dyno sheet and tell us what the car makes?

If you are talking about the Vette I'll see if I can get the owner to scan his latest version. IIRC he is around 22% hp and a mega-ton of torque. 4500rpm redline. Not sure what that has to do with anything though. My comment on the 'blind' 25% has to do with the cars that were estimated at less than 25%.



It's just frustrating that a system that is working is being nitpicked for errors that occurred under another regime and that we are trying to correctDisagree. DW adders were never a part of ITR. FWD with struts was the deduction. I am not sure where you are placing blame for the DW issue in ITR. Transcription in the formal write up of the Ops? Nobody on the committee with any current knowledge of how ITR was classed? Nobody on the committee calling anyone with said knowledge? Application of the DW is contrary to the concept of class consistency in my mind.

We should probably agree to disagree. The current climate at the ITAC/CRB is far better than it was when I was on the ITAC. I believe most of the CRB has bought into the OPS manual, sees it's value and won't slam on the brakes on a classification that an individual doesn't agree with. It's a better place.

[JeffYoung]

It has to do with complaining/lobbying on the 30% and if our decision to go 30% like all other 80s V8s was correct.

If the motor is flat lining at 4500, sounds like the owner needs to get on the horn with Burns and work on the tuning.

The adders and deducters during your time on the committee (and mine, I'm also to blame) were all over the place. Completely inconsistent. You guys did good work getting us to where we were when you left, but we took it from there. You may disagree with DW adder in ITR, but it's there and makes sense to some of us.

I absolutely was there when ITR was created. In fact, I was there when Ron did the very first spreadsheet of cars, worked with you guys when ITR was first approved and then on the ITAC very shortly thereafter.

There are reasons for the inconsistencies, but none of them have anything to do with the present ITAC, who is trying to sort out the inconsistencies that resulted from an evolving process. Nothing wrong with that other than getting nit picked for not having done the way you would prefer.

But I agree on agree to disagree.

[jjjanos]

Kirk/Jake/Andy did what they thought was right. I almost resigned as well and came close to being told to do so, but Josh impressed me with his leadership and impressed on me the need for us to stay on the committee to stay the course.

IIRC, I commended them for their actions and still do.


The result? Andy/Kirk/Jake made a statement and got attention of the higher ups, and got us the ability to do things like the Ops Manual.


I *think* we can get past the other stuff with the Audi and others.


Troof. Things are a bit better now but some of this will be a huge battle....

Which it is it? The Ops Manual or things like the Audi, because either you use the Manual or you don't. Your words aren't a ringing endorsement of a CRB on-board with the classification method that they approved.

IIRC, the corrections of errors is is being done en masse because of perception issues, correct? I.e. the perception that sending this up for approval as they are done will give the impression that the rules are not stable? If you have the CRB on board with the Ops Manual, then there shouldn't be a problem forwarding the corrections as they are completed by the ITAC.

Or is it because the CRB doesn't want to be bothered with IT issues?

The real rules instability is when you revise the Ops Manual for ITC because the published multiplier is unobtanium for a huge number of cars, if not a veto-proof majority of them. Y'all have been sitting on a request to drop the weight of the ITC CRX for a couple of years now because of that.... I mean, the comprehensive weight adjustment for the class.

[shwah]

Unfortunately with the large weight impact of getting it wrong, I don't know there is much that the ITAC can do to make the "ITB problem" go away. There are just too many lbs/hp to allow much differing perception of the power capability of any given car.

I do hope that the class gets better as the ITAC rolls through it, but until there is a way to objectively confirm the power adder for a given car, folks won't be happy. This is why so many A2 VWs have made the move to Production. No one can get 30%. No one can tell us of any legitimate knowledge of a car legally getting 30%, but the car is classed there because "someone" says it can.

It is a good time to run a Toyota or Honda in ITB though. It might create a beneficial influx of new cars/drivers into the class.

[Knestis]

unfortunately with the large weight impact of getting it wrong, i don't know there is much that the itac can do to make the "itb problem" go away. There are just too many lbs/hp to allow much differing perception of the power capability of any given car.

I do hope that the class gets better as the itac rolls through it, but until there is a way to objectively confirm the power adder for a given car, folks won't be happy. This is why so many a2 vws have made the move to production. No one can get 30%. No one can tell us of any legitimate knowledge of a car legally getting 30%, but the car is classed there because Chris Albin says it can.

It is a good time to run a toyota or honda in itb though. It might create a beneficial influx of new cars/drivers into the class.

fwiw

k

[quadzjr]

It is a good time to run a Toyota or Honda in ITB though. It might create a beneficial influx of new cars/drivers into the class.

It is a good time to run a MK3 VW, Honda Accord, or Protege in ITB. I can assure you. I have spent more money than I care to admit on my toyota.. I still come no where near the process power. On top of that.. I make 30% less torque than an A2. I joke aroudn with A2 drivers down here.. I am down a few hp which coudl be dyno noise but they make 30% more torque than me. They laugh at how bad it is for me. So the VW .. same hp, alot more torque, and weighs 50 lbs lighter..

My personal opinion is that the MK2 should be the bogey car. That is a great car and is driven by alot of ITB drivers. The MK3 has more power, more torque, better brakes, and a better transmission than a MK2.. however only the hp number is took into consideration per the class.

Long story short.. if you get beat by a Toyota in a straight line.. either your engine is about to blow up (Happened to Jetta I was chasing at sebring), You were driving in the grass (Happened at Roebling), or the Toyota is illegal. There is one Toyota that I think is/was illegal. I told his friend that if I see him expect to be inspected.

[Ralf]

Kirk, how much hp did your A3 cars make?

[shwah]

fwiw

k

I know Chris very well, like decades. I don't beleive that either one of us were able to achieve 30%, and even his word does not mean enough without some form of data in this case (IMO).

I had originally decided to just swallow the 30%, and try one more time, but with the weight that came off other competitive cars while I was back in school, it became a futile effort. It still might be the best for the class in the end. New cars are likely to show up in B at this point. Might bring with it some fresh enthusiasm.

[Knestis]

Kirk, how much hp did your A3 cars make?

Remember that you're asking that of the guy who requested that the weight of that car be reviewed, which resulted in an increase...

:026:

K

[lateapex911]

Remember that you're asking that of the guy who requested that the weight of that car be reviewed, which resulted in an increase...

:026:

K
Isn't it ironic that two guys, who campaigned AGAINST their own cars, were asked /forced to leave the ITAC, yet guys who made deals to protect their own cars ended up getting promoted to the CRB???

[Knestis]

I know Chris very well, like decades. I don't beleive that either one of us were able to achieve 30%, and even his word does not mean enough without some form of data in this case (IMO). ...

That conversation (on an ITAC call) happened before we codified the "evidentiary standards" that were in effect when I left the committee. He was running a MkIII Golf in ITB at that time. I share that only as fact, not any particular implication.

K

[Chip42]

I agree that the A2 is likely a bit off process - 30% is ~116 whp, 25% is ~112. we have evidence of 113 whp and suggestions that it can hit 115. so theoretically the ADDER isn't that far off. yes, at 17 lbs/hp and a resolution of 5% you ARE talking about 90lbs.

either way, the effort right now is in identifying the stock numbers to plug into the process and the multipliers that we "know" before agreeing about the ones we "think we know" and the ones that get the default numbers. for the stuff that's really running - the A1, A2, A3platform VWs, 4AGE Toyotas, 84-95 civics and siblings, A-motor prelude and accord, protégé, Audi coupes, 2002 BMW and Volvos we have a pretty good read on the cars. it's the 200SX, Simca injected 2.0L twin cam Alfas, TR7, 914, opel GT, 20 years of mustang on one specline, T-motor corollas, and MANY others that we are trying to identify figures for.

we need to get the house in order and everyone on the same page as far as the process and base numbers, THEN we can debate the best way to "fix" the "problems" which I put in quotes because there's far from universally agreed upon definitions for either.

[jjjanos]

it's the 200SX, Simca injected 2.0L twin cam Alfas, TR7, 914, opel GT, 20 years of mustang on one specline, T-motor corollas, and MANY others that we are trying to identify figures for.

See:


1. Get list of every ITB car that has races in last 7 years. In theory, the home office should have this as they get copies of the official results. (IIRC)

2. Everything not on that list gets a contact SCCA note for its weight.

3. Everything else gets run through. No point wasting effort getting the correct classification weight on a car that hasn't raced since 1987.

[quadzjr]

JJanos,

Some of the cars Chip mentioned are currently run. Just in teh southeast, there are mustangs and I ran against a 200SX last race at Barber.

My opinion is that you should be able to look at the ITCS and pick a car and based on a process it might have a chance of being competitive. Obviously you might spend alot more money developing some off the wall car (Opel GT.. how cool would that be) v.s. a knows recipe like a VW or honda.

[Chip42]

I've seen every one of those cars run ITB in the last 3-4 years.

[StephenB]

Opel GT.. how cool would that be .

Oh it is...

The second picture is within the last year...

[shwah]

I agree that the A2 is likely a bit off process - 30% is ~116 whp, 25% is ~112. we have evidence of 113 whp and suggestions that it can hit 115. so theoretically the ADDER isn't that far off. yes, at 17 lbs/hp and a resolution of 5% you ARE talking about 90lbs.

either way, the effort right now is in identifying the stock numbers to plug into the process and the multipliers that we "know" before agreeing about the ones we "think we know" and the ones that get the default numbers. for the stuff that's really running - the A1, A2, A3platform VWs, 4AGE Toyotas, 84-95 civics and siblings, A-motor prelude and accord, protégé, Audi coupes, 2002 BMW and Volvos we have a pretty good read on the cars. it's the 200SX, Simca injected 2.0L twin cam Alfas, TR7, 914, opel GT, 20 years of mustang on one specline, T-motor corollas, and MANY others that we are trying to identify figures for.

we need to get the house in order and everyone on the same page as far as the process and base numbers, THEN we can debate the best way to "fix" the "problems" which I put in quotes because there's far from universally agreed upon definitions for either.

Here's where you guys keep getting off the rails on dyno numbers. Without comparable stock motor data on the same dyno, you can't sit there and say that 116 is 30% and 112 is 25%.

I ran my car initially with a stock motor, and ran that on the same dyno that I did my development on, so I had actual gain data. If I only had numbers of the final result, they would just be numbers with no legitimate reference to the stock capability of the motor. In my case I was pretty consistently seeing 25-26%, and have a single outlier sheet that showed 27%, that could not even be duplicated that day with a lot of effort.

The point is, dynos are not very good a absolute, objective measurements, but they are really good at relative measurements. Be careful about acting on numbers from only one side of the development curve.

...

IMO there is a middle ground between the "spreadsheet or nothing" brigade and the "that doesn't seem right" crowd. I don't believe you can run a class on a spreadsheet with the quantity and quality of data that we have available, and at the point that those are not effective, we do need to rely on experience, observations and background knowledge of the cars in question. I thought this was the whole reason that we had advisory committees in the first place.

[pfcs]

My experience and dyno data closely agree with Chris's.

[Chip42]

Chris is right, perceptions DON'T mimic reality a lot. I personally have no issue with our CRB liason. we don't always agree, but I've never seen him do anything that I thought to be self serving in any way. I see that from some others, though. and yeah, I lobbied for the 4AGE toyotas (MR2) and I drive and am involved with a number of the cars. but where the car sits now is further off from actual power than the A2 VWs and I'm THRILLED about it, because it was acknowledged and accepted that the car wasn't the rocket ship FA with fenders everyone was scared of and threw the car a bone. at least now it can run about mid pack and keep tires and hubs under it. the accomplishment was in shaking off the perception by acquisition of actual data on actual cars, not in getting my pet car to the front of the field. I'll let you know when an MR2 beats an A3 Golf or Accord.

and yeah, if you want to actively manage a class, then you don't rely on estimated gains and "knowledge" based on dyno info. everyone is aware of the significant (especially in low-output classes) noise present in doing so, from unit to unit, brand to brand, compensation method, weather, etc... we get that but the Process which we have all signed on to and which won so much praise from so many people relies upon just those inputs to correct itself. this is why we can't make rulings with singular data points, and why we get hamstrung when a car is "right" to what we know but kicking everyone's ass (or floundering miserably - pick one) on track.

no one is off the rails. it's just the way THIS system works. we can change that, but I'd rather have a bunch of "unreliable", but agreeing dyno plots to point to than "wellllll, so and so is an expert and says the car does this" or "that car has 2 cams, everyone knows that make sit a race engine!" when we work dyno numbers we use a FIXED loss value - 15% in the case of transverse drivetrains, so it doesn't matter what the ACTUAL crank hp is, the input of "known" wheel numbers tells us a CHP estimate and that is used throughout the category. if the "estimated" CHP is equivalent to 30% above stock published numbers, then the resulting weight is as correct as a car that is classed with a similarly verified 25% gain. The actual gain is immaterial, what's important is that the cars are all measured with the same yardstick, and in so far as we are able, they are. we step in 5% increments because we simply don't have the resolution to do better. 5% is 85 lbs/100hp in ITB, so yeah, it sucks when you don't get the "bigger half" of that step.

if you want to debate how well the process works, I'm all ears. seriously, ask anyone - I am. but don't get bent out of shape because we actively refer to the single feedback loop built into the system in order to maintain its objectivity and impartiality, and to isolate the feedback from driver talent and prep disparities. that was the whole point of the thing, IIRC.

[lateapex911]

Jake - I know you have an axe to grind, but you are wrong about Chris, and have pretty consistently been an ass about it with veiled (or not) accusations over the last few years. He and I don't see eye to eye on plenty of things, but what he is trying to protect is the category, not his car. Someone could say the same thing about Chip joining the ITAC with an agenda to help cars he owns/races, or works on, but it would not be fair to the time and effort, and honest intent to make the whole class better that he has put into it.

.


Chris Albin??? I wasn't thinking about Chris when i wrote that. No, Chris didn't suggest any 'deals' to protect his car or class.
Chris' position on the Audi issue left something to be desired, but I'd write that off as a difference of opinion.
He isn't who I was referring to. I used the term 'guys' generically, when I should have been more literal in my choice of words.

[shwah]

Chris Albin??? I wasn't thinking about Chris when i wrote that. No, Chris didn't suggest any 'deals' to protect his car or class.
Chris' position on the Audi issue left something to be desired, but I'd write that off as a difference of opinion.
He isn't who I was referring to. I used the term 'guys' generically, when I should have been more literal in my choice of words.

Then I am very sorry for jumping to conclusions. You have always been just vague enough about the situation to make that possible though. That doesn't make it right for me to call you out publicly on it.

I'm editing my post.

[jjjanos]

JJanos,

Some of the cars Chip mentioned are currently run. Just in teh southeast, there are mustangs and I ran against a 200SX last race at Barber.

The point is that not every oddball, poorly documented car listed under ITB has been raced in recent memory, if at all. It is negligent to withhold submission of cars known to be incorrect until all the cars are run through the process.

If there weren't cars already listed that used the process, I would agree that submitting them en masse makes sense. That, however, isn't the case, we've got cars that were classified using the process, we've got cars that were corrected using the process and we've got freaking ITA cars listed at ITB weights.

[JeffYoung]

On dyno data:

1. It seems to "work" better at ITA/S/R power levels were real differences outside of dyno noise can be seen. The numbers posted above for ITB Golfs, 112 v. 115 v. 116? Could be dyno noise. As stated above, dynos are tools best used to measure improvement by comparisons using the same car and dyno in as close to the same conditions as possible.

2. that is not, of course, how we use them on the ITAC.

3. That said, as Chip points out, dynos aren't by any means perfect, but they are the best imperfect source of information we have, and far better than "damn that car pulls the others on the straight at Roebling" or "yeah, engine builder Y said X and he's GOOD!."

4. The fact of the matter is that dyno data is one of many factors used in evaluating whether a car makes 25% or 30% or 35% or whatever, and in reaching the confidence level each ITAC must individually reach in order to vote for a weight change. The confidence system works well and helps take out some of the inherent riskiness in dyno data.

[ajmr2]

I lobbied for the 4AGE toyotas (MR2) and I drive and am involved with a number of the cars. but where the car sits now is further off from actual power than the A2 VWs and I'm THRILLED about it, because it was acknowledged and accepted that the car wasn't the rocket ship FA with fenders everyone was scared of and threw the car a bone. at least now it can run about mid pack and keep tires and hubs under it. the accomplishment was in shaking off the perception by acquisition of actual data on actual cars, not in getting my pet car to the front of the field. I'll let you know when an MR2 beats an A3 Golf or Accord.


Chip. After all the exchanges that you and I had over the years about the MR2, I wouldn't hesiate for a second to testify in court concerning your integrity on these issues. You patiently listened to our collective concerns, answered my many questions, but promised nothing. You did your best along the way, and along with the other members of the ITAC, waited for acceptable real world info before getting it reviewed and presenting it to the CRB. It took 10+ years, but now we have a reliable, decent mid pack car which we love to race.

Give the ITAC a chance, guys.

:eclipsee_steering:

[Flyinglizard]

The older cars with crappy exhaust and econo priority engineering, will see much bigger gains than the newer multi- valve- nice exhaust- better engineered cars .
To run all of them at the same gain is not going to work.


Take the 4AG, the factory left very little on the table at stock cam lift and compression. Small gain indeed. The 16V VW is exactly the same as the 4AG. Very small gains . The stock exhaust manifold works very well with stock cams and compression. The biggest gains for both of these cars is controlling the fuel and timing map at race RPMs, after getting all of the legal compression and freeing up the rotating mass.
No way will either car make 25%. More like 8-9HP total .

I will go back to lack of cam timing rule for the IT cars. SM has gone to a much more hard value for the cam timing. For good reason. . We have guys moving the cams in the head to move the timing. Milling the head retards the timing and makes a little more upperpower. Maybe 3hp from 4800- 6400 on the VW.
The current rule states that the cam timing may be returned to stock, or may not.
If you allow milling the heads and decks. It only make sense to allow the adjustable cam wheel specifically to set the cam at stock spec..
Spec the valve opening @ stock plus or minus 2

ITAC needs to come up with good data for the cam timing, not leave open, as it is now.
Pull some valve covers, make shit happen.
I run the VW IT engines/cars that I have bought, in HProd. I usually have to reduce the cam size.

What happened to the Ford Mustang, with 88-96 HP how did it end up so heavy?

The SMAC has some vested interest issues maybe.. I put in for allowing replica (500$) tops that weigh the same, look the same ,etc .

"Not needed as tops are easy to buy" BS the SMAC guys own the legal tops and sell them for 1000$.
The HOHO tires are running off a lot of those guys now also.

[Ralf]

Chip mentioned wheel horse power when calculating the power gain for the ITB Golf, so how come there was such a big deal made for the AUDI in finding the proper factory HP rating? Why are we not using just published factory HP numbers? It seems that some of the confusion could be avoided if one were to use factory crank HP numbers.
As far as the ITB Golf, the spec line lists the GL, GT and GTI with power output of 90-105 depending on motors. So the 90hp GL can gain 15 hp just by updating. Does that mean the 105hp GTI with Digifant injection can get to 136.5hp with the legal mods we are allowed? :shrug:
Heck, the factory 2.0l 16V only came with 134hp.

[shwah]

When cars share a spec line the highest hp version is used to set weight, because all cars on that line can use that engine. The low hp A2 cars have lower compression, and more restrictive exhaust manifold.

I don't beleive the counterflow 8v can get to 136hp legally, but I don't see how the stock hp of the 16v is related to the question.

[Ralf]

From past discussions, the Golf was shown to be able to gain 30% by some mystery source. If one were to take a 90hp Golf GL and apply legal mods, one could say it can gain 30%. But to be able to say that the 105hp digifant GTI could also gain 30% is a bit of a stretch. That would mean the ITB Golf/Jetta is able to produce 136.5hp.
This is also the reason I asked Kirk how much power his 2l 8V made. Does it make more than 136hp?
The only reason I mentioned the 2l 16V was as a comparison. I know it has nothing to do with the ITB cars.

[Chip42]

yes, right now the A2 is classified with the assumption that it makes ~116whp. you can run any car on that specline with GTI equipment, including engine, digifant, etc...

I wasn't really around (here yes, not on the ITAC) for the Audi thing, lets leave it at "there was a disagreement" on the numbers. that much is certain. I can tell you that whp #'s are only used when classifying a car from "what we know" which is based on confidence in data, usually in the form of chassis dyno sheets, i.e. wheel hp. there has to be a method to work backwards to CHP, so we use a standard 15% loss. again - IT classing is a wide target, not a pin head.

standard classification math is stock HP (publish number) * gain (usually 25%, so "1.25") * class weight number (17 #/hp for ITB ) + adders

"what we know" has historically worked 2 ways:
1) we work backwards from WHP/0.85=CHP and forgo the stock hp * gain, going with Known CHP * weight + adders for the classification weight.

2) we do the same math, but run calculated CHP/stock HP for a gain number and round that UP to the nearest 5%. this is done when there is less conclusive data than above, but conclusive enough to shift the weight by a 5% gain (in other words, we can see the car will make notably more or less than 25% gains over stock but we don't have enough confidence to say for certain that THIS crank HP is correct - in essence, this is a revised initial classification as all cars are run with an estimated gain, usually of 25%). we then run the math as stock HP (published) * gain (as determined here) * class weight + adders

I personally like method 2 because it gives everything "room to grow" which racecars will tend to do, and is thus the conservative approach to classifying.

[JeffYoung]

Sorry, we are not going to locate and set cam timing specs for 300 different cars.

The Mustang makes damn good power so it got a higher gain number.

We don't run all cars at the same gain. We run at 25% as a default with different default numbers for rotaries. We move off of the 25% if we have good data showing we should.


The older cars with crappy exhaust and econo priority engineering, will see much bigger gains than the newer multi- valve- nice exhaust- better engineered cars .
To run all of them at the same gain is not going to work.


Take the 4AG, the factory left very little on the table at stock cam lift and compression. Small gain indeed. The 16V VW is exactly the same as the 4AG. Very small gains . The stock exhaust manifold works very well with stock cams and compression. The biggest gains for both of these cars is controlling the fuel and timing map at race RPMs, after getting all of the legal compression and freeing up the rotating mass.
No way will either car make 25%. More like 8-9HP total .

I will go back to lack of cam timing rule for the IT cars. SM has gone to a much more hard value for the cam timing. For good reason. . We have guys moving the cams in the head to move the timing. Milling the head retards the timing and makes a little more upperpower. Maybe 3hp from 4800- 6400 on the VW.
The current rule states that the cam timing may be returned to stock, or may not.
If you allow milling the heads and decks. It only make sense to allow the adjustable cam wheel specifically to set the cam at stock spec..
Spec the valve opening @ stock plus or minus 2

ITAC needs to come up with good data for the cam timing, not leave open, as it is now.
Pull some valve covers, make shit happen.
I run the VW IT engines/cars that I have bought, in HProd. I usually have to reduce the cam size.

What happened to the Ford Mustang, with 88-96 HP how did it end up so heavy?

The SMAC has some vested interest issues maybe.. I put in for allowing replica (500$) tops that weigh the same, look the same ,etc .

"Not needed as tops are easy to buy" BS the SMAC guys own the legal tops and sell them for 1000$.
The HOHO tires are running off a lot of those guys now also.

[Ralf]

yes, right now the A2 is classified with the assumption that it makes ~116whp. you can run any car on that specline with GTI equipment, including engine, digifant, etc...

I can tell you that whp #'s are only used when classifying a car from "what we know" which is based on confidence in data, usually in the form of chassis dyno sheets, i.e. wheel hp. there has to be a method to work backwards to CHP, so we use a standard15% loss. again - IT classing is a wide target, not a pin head.


I did a search for where this 15% powertrain loss comes from and found some interesting articles.

http://www.modified.com/tech/modp-1005-drivetrain-power-loss/viewall.html
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=75062
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_0311_drivetrain_power_loss/viewall.html

So, the 15% rule should also be just an assumption rather than a standard.

[Knestis]

It's never been more than an assumption. It's not possible to know exactly what the value should be for any individual car.

K

[Chip42]

Ralf,

that's true - but like I said, working backwards using the same loss number for everyone (well, 15 or 18% if longitudinal F/R) means that "what we know" puts all drivetrains on an even footing WRT loss. lossy, inefficient drivetrains look like lower gain motors, and higher efficiency drivetrains look like higher gaining motors. it all works out in the wash.

it's a pretty decent system for the level of accuracy we are shooting for.

[Ralf]

But you are giving the Golf/Jetta an additional 5% over other cars classified. If VW designed the drivetrain to only have a 10% loss rather than the 15% used in the formula, the chassis dyno will show a higher whp.
I have no dyno data of my own, but have been a VW fan for a long time and have a very hard time believing that with our limited allowances and a stock cam, these motors can achieve a gain of 32hp.
These cars were not restricted with emission systems like some of the domestic market. I even passed the California emission test with a gutted catalytic converter and a 268 degree cam.

[Flyinglizard]

My 12-1 prod engine rolls at 118-119. ( with 25yrs of tricks)

The 10-1 , IT legal version is about 10 less @just over 108.
Maybe, maybe right at 110 with angle milled head, loose PTW, gapless rings,Hrs into the valve seat job. fresh hand lapped valves.
Spot on CIS.

MY 1.6 Miata rolls the same dyno at 113 so I think the numbers are valid.
Florida power is about 2 less than NY power tho. Even corrected.

[Flyinglizard]

FWIW many early cars were dynoed with the very special brazilian ( VW marked ) cam . That cam is worth a solid 8-10HP , 268 duration.

The legal 020 cam was run to 6400rpm and weak over 6000. The 268 pulls well to 7200.

[quadzjr]

Mike,

How do you identify these cams? I have talked to a few MK2 guys in the SE and all are making more than your 108. At least the guys that run up front that I talk to.

angled milled head and crazy valve seat work are not legal in IT.

The 1.6 Miata should be making more than 113.. maybe your dyno is putting out numbers a little low.

Ralf,

Strickly speaking from an engineering aspect.. they do not design in a drivetrain loss.. Ideally they reduce it down as much as possible.

the drivetrain loss varies from car to car and drive train to drive train.. however, as long as you base all from the same point it really does not matter.. you are talking very small percentages at this point. 15% loss for FWD layouts and 18% loss for front engine rwd layouts are pretty common industry standards.

[Flyinglizard]

The engine that made 108-110 went 244. 5 Sebring long,on the old T 1, Right with Paul Ronnie. We swapped wins.
His new, maybe more legal car, is going 2:46, now. .
Removed 100# and ran the 268 cam , same engine /car went 243 on the new track( Michael) . Similar tires.
FWIW the alternator cut out is worth over 1 sec. 2hp?

I dont think that any legal cam and compression will make more through the CIS door.
A good digi- mega squirt car may have a little more .

It is a good maybe that the dyno is a little low, Maybe 3 but not more than that IMHO.
The 1.6 Miata runs like 113. That is about plus 12. so not bad with stock spinning stuff behind it. (I use 15% loss for the Miata.) Very legal stock bottom end. under legal compression.

The VW just pulls the Miata about 3ft per straight at 2065# and the Miata at 2200. Just expired the VW engine last race. 10yrs. not bad.

The cam is marked "Brazil", I sell all that I can get to the DR, as they have to use a "VW" marked cam. It is very good.

[Chip42]

But you are giving the Golf/Jetta an additional 5% over other cars classified. If VW designed the drivetrain to only have a 10% loss rather than the 15% used in the formula, the chassis dyno will show a higher whp.
I have no dyno data of my own, but have been a VW fan for a long time and have a very hard time believing that with our limited allowances and a stock cam, these motors can achieve a gain of 32hp.
These cars were not restricted with emission systems like some of the domestic market. I even passed the California emission test with a gutted catalytic converter and a 268 degree cam.

no we aren't. the A2 is set to a weight corresponding to a HP number established by data for WHP that is turned into an assumed CHP that then drives a weight through a standard calculation. if that data is incorrect, and it might be - we're only human, then the argument that "the A2 is classified incorrectly" holds plenty of water. but saying "you are giving a short stick to car X" based on the fact that we works a CHP number form WHP/0.85 is silly. the "standard loss" equalizes, it does not harm.

what we REALLY want to do is make cars as equal as reasonably possible within our rules. working backwards to an assumed CHP is simply keeping things at one set of equations as we have far more cars without WHP-in-IT-trim data than we do with, so we generally use published CHP. interestingly, the problems are based on pretty much everything BUT this part of the system.

[lateapex911]

Then I am very sorry for jumping to conclusions. You have always been just vague enough about the situation to make that possible though. That doesn't make it right for me to call you out publicly on it.

I'm editing my post.

No problem Chris. I like Albin. My single issue with him was that he kept saying he "knew a guy" who got great power from an MR2, and the guy was able to make weight, so he didn't see what the issue was. But, he could never dig up the dyno sheet or info on the mystery car, and that it had been sold or ..well, I don't even remember all teh details now. Bottom line was he really dug in about that car, in the face of overwhelming opposing info, and he wasn't the only one.
Now in my mind he DID think he'd seen numbers at some point, but couldn't remember the exact details or provide proof. he was, in my mind, acting in good faith. But my issue was that it was far too murky to put much weight behind such claims.
The real issue I had was with others who claimed the engine was a Formula Atlantic motor, etc etc, and the rules/process deals that were made kinda sneakily that ended up screwing the MR-2 ...again.

I probably was more detailed on the SCCA forum where the people involved had a chance to provide their viewpoints.

But no, Chis never made deals or was acting in any clear way to protect his turf.

[AE86ITA]

Well, very interesting data and I'm sure many more skeletons will come from the dead, but the original question remains...WHEN WOULD WE SEE THE NEW ITB WEIGHT DATA FINISHED!!!

Thanks guys I know you're working on it, but we need something to work with

[Robbie]

Well, very interesting data and I'm sure many more skeletons will come from the dead, but the original question remains...WHEN WOULD WE SEE THE NEW ITB WEIGHT DATA FINISHED!!!

Thanks guys I know you're working on it, but we need something to work with

Since you're so interested in getting this, perhaps you should volunteer to be on the ITAC and help collect information rather than sit on the sidelines demanding action. This is a giant undertaking. I would suggest patience.

[AE86ITA]

Since you're so interested in getting this, perhaps you should volunteer to be on the ITAC and help collect information rather than sit on the sidelines demanding action. This is a giant undertaking. I would suggest patience.


Patient we shall be then!!!

over and out,

[Ed Funk]

Volunteering to serve on the committee doesn't always work. BTDT.

[lateapex911]

IF the ITAC had been left on it's own regarding ITB, I bet it would be done by now. But yea, for reasons not entirely of it's own doing, the ITB thing has dragged on. Heck, I've been off the committee for an easy, what, 3 years I guess? And we were working on it for 2 before that,(Right kirk? Andy? Josh? Jeff?) so it's an easy 5 years in process.

[Knestis]

The problem has never been "doing it." The problem has been getting permission to "do it" such that the results would be implemented.

The fundamental problem is that the ITAC needs a generalizable approach and some key members of the PTB want a line-item veto on particular make/model options, based on what scares them.

K

[lateapex911]

The problem has never been "doing it." The problem has been getting permission to "do it" such that the results would be implemented.

The fundamental problem is that the ITAC needs a generalizable approach and some key members of the PTB CRB want a line-item veto on particular make/model options, based on what scares them.

K
Allow me to be less suggestive and more to the point, ;)!
(And, I should add, that back "in the day" when you and i were on con calls that, yes, indeed, the PTB definition fit as we had a guy on the con call that wasn't on EITHER board, yet voiced his opinion and pushed for his desires to be enacted upon......)
So, yea, maybe it should be "CRB and other behind the scenes parties)

[Kendall17]

I hope the Audi Coupe loses some weight since its original weight was based on 120hp which the car never had here in the States. Stock form in the USA is 110hp.

Ken

[Chip42]

as said previously, the problem currently is the scope of the ordeal and the umpteen different specs and tech levels we're trying to wrap our heads around. that the bulk of the actively campaigned class ISN'T hondas and toyotas and other beaten to death horses means that this info is not readily available in many cases. until everything is balanced to an agreeably objective level, the changes will not be released to the CRB. THEN you can call your black helicopters and stuff but for right now, save the fuel for the racecar.

if the car you are looking at is a modern one, chances are good the weights are going to stay as published currently as those have available published numbers that work with the process.

If it's a non MR2 4AGE toyota, you can run the numbers based on the MR2 (less50# for AE86, that x0.98 for the FX16). The audi thing might get political, can't say as we haven't gotten to it. but it did before. there's a dark cloud over it and I personally don't like that.

[RSTPerformance]

Ken- are you racing an Audi??? If so contact me, been through this and I can tell you it's not worth it... I would love to see it fixed but I have learned to just enjoy the car for what it is and have fun racing for a podium :)

Raymond

[lateapex911]

as said previously, the problem currently is the scope of the ordeal and the umpteen different specs and tech levels we're trying to wrap our heads around. that the bulk of the actively campaigned class ISN'T hondas and toyotas and other beaten to death horses means that this info is not readily available in many cases. until everything is balanced to an agreeably objective level, the changes will not be released to the CRB. THEN you can call your black helicopters and stuff but for right now, save the fuel for the racecar.

if the car you are looking at is a modern one, chances are good the weights are going to stay as published currently as those have available published numbers that work with the process.

If it's a non MR2 4AGE toyota, you can run the numbers based on the MR2 (less50# for AE86, that x0.98 for the FX16). The audi thing might get political, can't say as we haven't gotten to it. but it did before. there's a dark cloud over it and I personally don't like that.
BUT, the chief 'enemy' of the Audi has left the CRB, so the whole "I have decided I don't like the Process, I want displacement to be a factor' issue might have left the building. Or not., (As I don't know the mindset of the current CRB)

[Chip42]

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[AE86ITA]

as said previously, the problem currently is the scope of the ordeal and the umpteen different specs and tech levels we're trying to wrap our heads around. that the bulk of the actively campaigned class ISN'T hondas and toyotas and other beaten to death horses means that this info is not readily available in many cases. until everything is balanced to an agreeably objective level, the changes will not be released to the CRB. THEN you can call your black helicopters and stuff but for right now, save the fuel for the racecar.

if the car you are looking at is a modern one, chances are good the weights are going to stay as published currently as those have available published numbers that work with the process.

If it's a non MR2 4AGE toyota, you can run the numbers based on the MR2 (less50# for AE86, that x0.98 for the FX16). The audi thing might get political, can't say as we haven't gotten to it. but it did before. there's a dark cloud over it and I personally don't like that.


Chip;
When can we see exactly that put in black and white before the end of this year? (ie Fast Track)

[Chip42]

Chip;
When can we see exactly that put in black and white before the end of this year? (ie Fast Track)

efrain,

write another letter and I'll see if I can get the guys to agree to this. should be pretty simple.

[jjjanos]

I bet the real reason our President resigned was in protest of the CRB interfering with the process!

[lateapex911]

I bet the real reason our President resigned was in protest of the CRB interfering with the process!


"Resigned", hahahahhahahaha. Who "resigns" in the AM and is gone in the PM???

[Chip42]

hopefully ME when I get around to it. from the job, not the committee

[lateapex911]

hopefully ME when I get around to it. from the job, not the committee
You, like JD seem to be a stand up kind of guy, so you'll be fair and give notice.

[Rabbit05]

I hope the Audi Coupe loses some weight since its original weight was based on 120hp which the car never had here in the States. Stock form in the USA is 110hp.

Ken


Hi Ken !
I had taken this up in the past, after the Blethen's did . This is well known fact through out the world the HP of the KX is 110. (( owners manual , Factory Manual, and I managed to get my hands on some internal advertising bits from Audi all stating 110hp))...Except a privileged few have seen, heard of , or mentioned a "secret Audi microchife" saying otherwise.(que the "copters"!) And have processed the Audi using inaccurate information. Henceforth the extra weight.

I am optimistically pessimistic that the Audi will ever change.. considering that it was mentioned politics are also involved....:(

(sorry all I saw the word Audi and couldn't help myself....:D )

<back to lurking mode>

[Ron Earp]

Holy shit this ITB debacle is legendary.

How much money would you Audi folks need to put push the cars off a cliff so this topic will disappear? It's clear the ITAC isn't going to doing anything about it, but if the price was right maybe I could help out.

I'm mostly kidding, at least about the cliff and the money.

[JeffYoung]

We reduced the weight on that car once, if I recall correctly. The documentation on stock hp is contradictory although most evidence is 110. That said, none of the owners/drivers (all of whom I like) would produce IT build dyno sheets which we could have used to help solve the problem. This was in marked contrast to the MR2 situation where I think we had 5 or 6 IT build dyno sheets to use to show the car couldn't hit a certain target percentage.

In other words, and with all due respect to the Audi drivers, we didn't get much help from them except to complain. While their cars were competitive on track, which didn't help the case.

The amount of time the ITAC spent on the ITB Audi v. the number of these cars actually running on track is insane.

[StephenB]

We reduced the weight on that car once, if I recall correctly. The documentation on stock hp is contradictory although most evidence is 110. That said, none of the owners/drivers (all of whom I like) would produce IT build dyno sheets which we could have used to help solve the problem. This was in marked contrast to the MR2 situation where I think we had 5 or 6 IT build dyno sheets to use to show the car couldn't hit a certain target percentage.

In other words, and with all due respect to the Audi drivers, we didn't get much help from them except to complain. While their cars were competitive on track, which didn't help the case.

The amount of time the ITAC spent on the ITB Audi v. the number of these cars actually running on track is insane.

I agree with all that.

Stephen,
the owner of the fastest ITB coupe in the country without a stand alone ECU. :) which now lives in the woods...

[Ron Earp]

The amount of time the ITAC spent on the ITB Audi v. the number of these cars actually running on track is insane.

That's got to be true. Seems I've been reading about ITB on this site for five years.

What's the SCCA scairt of with fixing these cars according to the process? What is the WORST that could happen? Some people race their Audi Coupes and win a regional race the SCCA doesn't care about anyhow?

Scary stuff.

[lateapex911]

I agree with all that.

Stephen,
the owner of the fastest ITB coupe in the country without a stand alone ECU. :) which now lives in the woods...
So, Stephen, what did your car make for power???

[lateapex911]

The amount of time the ITAC spent on the ITB Audi v. the number of these cars actually running on track is insane.


True.
However, the freakin MR2 debacle makes the Audi look like a mere footnote.
While the "against" guys in the Audi discussion had at least SOME data, the MR2 guys had zero, zilch nada. Except it was the same block bore and spacing as a Formula Atlantic racer....:rolleyes:

[StephenB]

So, Stephen, what did your car make for power???

No clue and I have no plans to find out. Stock I still think it came with 110hp... doesn't really matter what I got for power out of it. No-one that drives an audi is or ever has asked for an "extra" reduction in the weight like the mr2. The process is the process, that's all we wanted, still not sure why no-one understands that. As said before though, I have to trust that the info the ITAC has showing the higher hp is correct and live with that answer. I will never agree but I will, and did, accept it.

Stephen

[lateapex911]

That's got to be true. Seems I've been reading about ITB on this site for five years.

What's the SCCA scairt of with fixing these cars according to the process? What is the WORST that could happen? Some people race their Audi Coupes and win a regional race the SCCA doesn't care about anyhow?

Scary stuff.

Ron, but as you can see above, Stephen feels they used the wrong power in classing the car, as does John. I don't know John, and don't know if he did a lot of dyno work in his short ownership of the car, but I am not surprised that Stephen says he doesn't know. I never saw any source from anyone while I was on the ITAC that stated 120 stock. But I know that the CRB didn't care about the 110 rating, they cared about 2 things: that the car sat on the front row of the ARRC (but neither finished and therefor, no tech teardown), and the displacement, which meant it MUST have more power or torque, so it's a mistake to 'just go with 110".

If i were an owner of the car, and I saw other cars get Processed at face value, but my car had 170 pounds plopped on it "just cuz'", I'd feel screwed. People don't like being screwed...in comparison with others of equal standing, so, you, you're going to hear about it for awhile.

The MR2 thing is even worse, and I was involved in that too, mistakenly doing bad math, (ANd having nobody on the con call catch me...or say anything) on it, then the utter refusal to fix it....at 30%! Even the reduction, which came years later, is still more than the 5-6 dyno sheets Jeff points to as the 'proof' needed to budge the classing.

So the MR2 guys, who have been fighting for a fair shake for yeeeeears, (Car was in ITA back in what, 02?) feel screwed too, both by the numbers and by the excessive amount of time to even get to those numbers. It's one thing to look at a classing like yours, Ron, see it's weight, and know either you can't hit the weight, (or it's set high by Process), but decide to run the car anyway, either because you think it can run despite the weight, or you just like it, (or whatever), but its another thing entirely to own and run a car*, THEN have to move classes, sell wheels, buy new wheels, and the weight be ridiculous. Well, that smarts.

Now, to be clear, neither of these are the ITACs fault, per se'. No, it's largely the fault of the CRB, who decided to draw lines in the sand, and support wacky non Process deals** .... If two members of the CRB, and the CRB/ITAC weren't involved, I am convinced things would be very different for those cars.

* and the car was once upon a time ok in ITA, but classings that post dated it were made far more aggressively, and, like the RX-7, it was rendered uncompetitive.

**Jeff, that multi valve ITB thing predated your time on the ITAC, and IIRC, you were traveling when the MR2 30% thing went down, as was Andy, and I was running the call from a hotel room in Watkins Glen and didn't have my usual 3 monitors worth of info up in front of me, and flat blew the classing based on looking at the wrong calc....

[Ron Earp]

Deleted. The situation that is the ITB debacle is an embarrassment to the club, but entirely expected.

[JeffYoung]

The perception is worse than teh reality. I'd say the MR2 is an example of the process ultimately working. The 30% adder for ITB multivavle was BS, but ultimately it got fixed and while 20% is higher than the best dyno sheets we've seen for the MR2 it's not out of the range of possibility. It's conservative, as it should be.

There is an internal Audi document showing 120 hp for the Audi. It exists. No one can explain it. The resulting weight is not based on teh 120 hp but rather on a very rough what we know on actual gain. Not perfect at all but it worked, as the car is not hopelessly outclassed and in fact is a front runner.

[Chip42]

And it's a shame - there are many good, affordable cars out there built or driving around on the street that make reliable, fun, "fast" ITB cars. I honestly believe there's no better racing on a budget (especially if the street tire challenge concept gains traction as ITB is the class best suited to it)

yet outside of pockets of the country (the big # areas, CFR, NARRC, MARRS) ITB is woefully undersubscribed. the "debacle" doesn't help much. but the biggest issue is the shopping preferences of middle class males leaning decidedly away from small sedans with <130hp, many <110hp. "no one" gives a shit about the cars we race. they want integras and RX7s and moosetangs. and that's great.

the UPside of all of this is the lessons learned portion. we got rid of the 30% rule (it's now a suggestion - I have to check if the new version has been posted yet) the MR2 is classed at 20% which made everyone happy (yes, by process it's off a bit but just about every car is running around heavy now anyhow so approaching irrelevant) and the Audi, while the classing was done on some numbers that aren't widely agreed upon, seems to be doing OK regardless so can't be THAT far off actual as raced numbers. yeah, that's not the point of the issue and we all know it, but when the green drops the only thing that matters is weather or not you have a chance, and in that light I think the Audi is OK. I'd rather it be re-run using "what we know" (from good data) and let the weight fall objectively from the math, but there you go. what we have now does agree with the conversational data we have, which is all we have. the lessons transcend ITB and are applicable throughout all of IT, and to ST, prod etc... as well to a degree.

regarding torque - we don't really process for it. in ITR there's a 100-150# penalty for having gobs of the stuff, but you rarely find any use of the torque adders in ITC-A and it's not very common in ITS. one of the reasons I want the database completed in B, and all other classes, is to have mean, median, and Std Dev. torque values for each class so we can more objectively apply the torque adder. I believe there are many places where it's needed and not used, and not a few where it's used unnecessarily. but that's the future, and it's one man's objective as I'm not speaking for the committee nor the board. right now we have to get the data sorted out and get everyone on the same page, even if it's a somewhat larger page than one might want.

[gran racing]

Seems I've been reading about ITB on this site for five years.

Imagine how frustrating it is to be more involved than just reading about it. ;)

As I began racing with SCCA, I was often told that things operate in a backroom and don’t be surprised with the politics as well as decisions that just don’t make sense.
Then came about the process as a great way to minimize subjectivity, if it were to actually be utilized as intended.
I have since on from ITB but the whole deal still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If there had be openness, things would be different. My dealings with the multi-valve adder where a CRB member had specific interest in the Accord, that car gained weight associated with how the adder was documented, then lost weight right at the point where it was said no more weights would be adjusted for the time being in ITB. Seriously? When was that now, two years ago?

Many cars in the ITB class have not been provided the opportunity to be run through the process in a fair matter. Ways to handle the volume have been discussed way too often. A member submits the request, provides supporting information, it goes in line.

It was truly disappointing how all of things have been handled and the often perceived back room deals of SCCA sure seem legitimate to many people. I’m not saying that it is happening now, or even the ITAC could have done anything different. But hey, ask membership and the majority will say “politics as usual in racing.”

What I’m most disappointed in is that I felt we had the tools and the people in place to do things right and the way they should be in racing. We blew it. Yes, time to move on and do what can be done going forward.

[Chip42]

we the ITAC, decided to stop piecemeal adjustments to the class or "Death by a thousand cuts" as this was seen as widening gaps, real or perceived, and decided instead to rerun everything when the data was collected. I think that was roughly 1 year ago now. we have approved new cars, but haven't adjusted any existing ones pending completion of this endeavor, and I am starting to agree that it would be good to run "just those cars" that are running, but in reality we really have to do all or nothing in order to EVER get to the rest of the cars. yeah, we could pull weights a'la production but I'm sure we'd miss something that is being run but isn't being talked about. probably a lot of somethings. we'll discuss, it's pretty much our highest priority right now and only large project.

[JeffYoung]

Yeah but...

I know you feel frustrated, and you should be, vis a vis the Accord, but at the same time for every situation like the 30% adder in ITB/the Audi/the MR2 there have been probably over a hundred cars that were processed or "fixed" during the Great Realignment. Because your car was involved, I get you feel the system failed, but when you look at it wholistically, it's doing exactly as promised.

The problem children get all the attention though (not you, I mean the situation with a couple of cars in ITB).

I guess the only frustration I feel with posts like yours is the fact that they are coming from a car that was VERY competitive anyway. I know that the 30% for your car but not the Accord wasn't fair, and it took a long and winding road to get it fixed, but in the interim it wasn't like your car was consigned to the scrap heap.

Anyway, I understand most of what you are saying and just want to assure you that 99% of the time the Process works awesome. It really does.





Imagine how frustrating it is to be more involved than just reading about it. ;)

As I began racing with SCCA, I was often told that things operate in a backroom and don’t be surprised with the politics as well as decisions that just don’t make sense.
Then came about the process as a great way to minimize subjectivity, if it were to actually be utilized as intended.
I have since on from ITB but the whole deal still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If there had be openness, things would be different. My dealings with the multi-valve adder where a CRB member had specific interest in the Accord, that car gained weight associated with how the adder was documented, then lost weight right at the point where it was said no more weights would be adjusted for the time being in ITB. Seriously? When was that now, two years ago?

Many cars in the ITB class have not been provided the opportunity to be run through the process in a fair matter. Ways to handle the volume have been discussed way too often. A member submits the request, provides supporting information, it goes in line.

It was truly disappointing how all of things have been handled and the often perceived back room deals of SCCA sure seem legitimate to many people. I’m not saying that it is happening now, or even the ITAC could have done anything different. But hey, ask membership and the majority will say “politics as usual in racing.”

What I’m most disappointed in is that I felt we had the tools and the people in place to do things right and the way they should be in racing. We blew it. Yes, time to move on and do what can be done going forward.

[shwah]

sorry - but on track competitiveness is not part of the analysis

[Knestis]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/450452736/hF6B84462/

LOL - same stuff, different day.

We can argue about consumer preferences but the simple fact is that mismanagement by the CRB (and its proxies) has chased real, live, racers out of ITB.

It is pointedly NOT an all-or-nothing proposition and the most surefire way to assure that "nothing" gets done is to set as the standard that it "all" gets done.

And with the paradigm established by The Process, "seems to be doing OK" is as bad a reason for doing nothing as "Dave Gran is winning every time he races" would have been for giving his Honda a lead trophy.

Since it seems that the CRB obstructionism has been resolved, all of the tools are in place to start making fixes. I'm sorry, ITAC guys, but to not do so is just a different brand of the same old silliness.

K

[JeffYoung]

sorry - but on track competitiveness is not part of the analysis

Ugh.

No, it's not. Except to monitor whether we've just gotten something completely wrong with the process. Which was not the case with Dave's Accord.

AGAIN GUYS: with the perceived "problem" with the ITAC and the Process being .3% of the cars in ITB (Accord, Audi, MR2) I can't help but conclude that a large part of the problem is unrealistic expectations of membership.

No, we are never going to be able to get all of this "right" in a way that suits everyone. No, nothing is ever going to be 100% consistent. But I'll take 99.7% or whatever we are at.

[JeffYoung]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/450452736/hF6B84462/

LOL - same stuff, different day.

We can argue about consumer preferences but the simple fact is that mismanagement by the CRB (and its proxies) has chased real, live, racers out of ITB.

It is pointedly NOT an all-or-nothing proposition and the most surefire way to assure that "nothing" gets done is to set as the standard that it "all" gets done.

And with the paradigm established by The Process, "seems to be doing OK" is as bad a reason for doing nothing as "Dave Gran is winning every time he races" would have been for giving his Honda a lead trophy.

Since it seems that the CRB obstructionism has been resolved, all of the tools are in place to start making fixes. I'm sorry, ITAC guys, but to not do so is just a different brand of the same old silliness.

K

Ok, that happened. It's over. The 30% rule is gone. The Accord, Prelude and MR2 are fixed. The Audi is in all likelihood at a number that is close to its actual output. One of the VWs is probably over weight at 30% but it's not off by much.

If you want perfection, sure, there's lot to get angry about. If you want close, very well balanced muti-marque racing, put down the keyboard and race IT.

I frankly don't care about whether we do ITB piecemeal or all at once. Either way we'll catch flak. Part and parcel with the "job." I just want it done RIGHT. With "RIGHT" not being "what Joe thinks is correct for his car." We get a lot of that.

[Rabbit05]

the UPside of all of this is the lessons learned portion. we got rid of the 30% rule (it's now a suggestion - I have to check if the new version has been posted yet) the MR2 is classed at 20% which made everyone happy (yes, by process it's off a bit but just about every car is running around heavy now anyhow so approaching irrelevant) and the Audi, while the classing was done on some numbers that aren't widely agreed upon, seems to be doing OK regardless so can't be THAT far off actual as raced numbers. yeah, that's not the point of the issue and we all know it, but when the green drops the only thing that matters is weather or not you have a chance, and in that light I think the Audi is OK. I'd rather it be re-run using "what we know" (from good data) and let the weight fall objectively from the math, but there you go. what we have now does agree with the conversational data we have, which is all we have. the lessons transcend ITB and are applicable throughout all of IT, and to ST, prod etc... as well to a degree.



But isn't that considered using as on-track performance as a guide or benchmark ? Which isn't allowed... And as Jeff mentioned, the Toyota and Accord have been fixed.....So do the ITAC folks really think the Audi will blow up the class if it sheds the extra weight ?:wacko:

[JeffYoung]

But isn't that considered using as on-track performance as a guide or benchmark ? Which isn't allowed... And as Jeff mentioned, the Toyota and Accord have been fixed.....So do the ITAC folks really think the Audi will blow up the class if it sheds the extra weight ?:wacko:

Chip is articulating exactly how all of us, even the most "conservative" ITAC members past and present, would view on track performance -- just as after the fact evidence of whether the classification (and the expected gain in IT trim) was right or wrong. Just a way to validate whether 25% on a CRX or a rotary was correct or incorrect, and to sniff out overdogs.

I don't think the Audi will blow up the class if it was classed at 25% gain on 110 stock hp. That said, I also don't think the Audi drivers as a group have been as forthcoming in helping us to fix the claimed error by submitting dyno sheets (dyno runs are not expensive) like the Mr2 drivers did. Less complaining and more work/effort by them would have perhaps gotten this resolved sooner, and more favorably to them.

I would be especially peeved if the Audi drivers as a group KNEW their cars made well more than 25% and still pushed for the 110 hp classification as a knowing attempt to game the process. I'm not saying that happened, but I would be very unhappy if it did.

[gran racing]

Don't think I'm upset with your opinions on this Jeff but that's not fully what I was upset about. And believe it or not, it was, and still remains to be much more than just about what impacted me individually.


just want to assure you that 99% of the time the Process works awesome.
I agree, when it is applied the say way.

Which was not the case with Dave's Accord.
That's just it. Accord had a lower % adder when the CRB decided to add the multivalve adder to ITB. I played the game and submitted two requests. 1 - eliminate the adder or at least use it as done now. 2 - increase the weight of the Accord. 3 - Put the car I was racing (a Prelude) through the process which had similar engine arcitecture structure but 10 HP less stock. The Accord weight got bumped up to the defacto 30%. All of a sudden now that the Accord was impacted, coincidently (ha?) the multivalve deal is changed. The Accord then gets weight reduced. Then no other cars are allowed to be adjusted, including the Prelude.
It was seeing the politics behind this and other situations. Yes, it bothered me that I wanted to go down to the ARRC and would be racing against the Accords which were directly involved with those on the CRB. It also opened my eyes to how things work and certainly concerned me about how ALL cars and categories that the CRB is involved in would be treated.

While I moved on from ITB, I still care about those cars. It really wasn't about a single car classification. The Audi ARRC and a different CRB member's reaction was absolutely a part of this. I had zero faith in the CRB at that point in time. The ITAC and Process? Absolutely.

If they weren't, I truly think certain members of the CRB should have been asked to step down and no longer in office of SCCA due to these reasons.

Focusing on the present, I just hope things are much more in the open. Put cars through the process, be able to explain why a car was classed the way it was, the CRB not put personal objectives into decision making or recuse themselves if it's too closely tied. Open communication.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hate to see bitching about the Audi. Two different HP rating are on file. So what do you do? You try and validate one of them. Printed docs show two numbers from the factory. You gather dyno data and engine build data and then try and make sense of the information. Guess what? None exists. Whose fault is that?

I would have classed it at 120 until someone proved that 127.5whp wasn't possible.

[lateapex911]

I don't think the Audi will blow up the class if it was classed at 25% gain on 110 stock hp. That said, I also don't think the Audi drivers as a group have been as forthcoming in helping us to fix the claimed error by submitting dyno sheets (dyno runs are not expensive) like the Mr2 drivers did. Less complaining and more work/effort by them would have perhaps gotten this resolved sooner, and more favorably to them.




Look at it from the outside, Jeff....
The general timeline-

1- The MR2 motor was classified at a ridiculous 30%. (in a "deal" made by a then ITAC member to "allow" multivalve motors into ITB, because "multivalves make more gains")
2- MR2 owners howl in protest. Lose wheel size AND get screwed on power?? Just grrrreat!
3- The same ITAC member who devised the 30% fiasco moves to the CRB, (!!!:blink:!!!) and flat refutes their claims, and states "It's a Formula Atlantic engine!!!" The ITAC requests dyno sheets.
4- They get dyno sheets, all of them pretty weak, one was a Prod engine that STILL didn't sniff at anything close to 30%, nor even 25%. More resistance from the naysayers, notably guys who have ITB cars. (Not saying they were all biased, but they had ITB cars and they resisted mightily, simple as that)
5- Finally, the car gets adjusted, but what are the actual sheets showing as gains? My recollection shows 11%, or 12%. So the classification gets set to 20%. Now that IS a LOT better than the 30%, (Which is kinda like saying "Great, I have gonorrhea! The BEST of the sexually transmitted diseases!"~).....but, it took forever, and I bet the MR2 guys still think it's not where it should be.


So, after watching that fiasco, and the end result transpire, I can see how the Audi guys might say, "F-that"....I mean you KNOW the deal: The ITAC needs more sheets, wants a different dyno, wants more build data, wants more exhaust header experimentation, doesn't like the F/A curve, and so on, and after all that, IF the sheets come in at say 21% of 110, they'd be terrified that the old "Stick 5% more on it just because" would be done, just like the MR2.

So, why go to ALL that expense, and bother, just to be right where you started?

Especially when they knew that there was certainly clear indications that hanky panky could have been happening with members of the PTB who had vested interests in the same class!

Honestly, I don't blame them one bit for just shaking their heads and moving on.

[lateapex911]

I hate to see bitching about the Audi. Two different HP rating are on file. So what do you do? You try and validate one of them. Printed docs show two numbers from the factory. You gather dyno data and engine build data and then try and make sense of the information. Guess what? None exists. Whose fault is that?

I would have classed it at 120 until someone proved that 127.5whp wasn't possible.

As long as we're playing "I would have...."

I never saw this reported microfiche that exists in some drawer in Ingolstatd, but I have seen multiple and numerous references to the 100 rating. I also never saw dyno sheets that people swore existed showing big gains. So, show me the paper.

I'd have proposed, if I were on the ITAC, and we somehow came to the scenario of choosing 110 or 120, that we do a 'confidence vote".

It's a vexing problem all across ITB. Maybe the confidence vote concept can help? Divide and conquer.

[Knestis]

I would have done what I tried to do: Write off the mythical higher-power document as an anomaly, clarify and tighten up the spec line to only include the years to which the lower documented figure applied, run the process, and go racing.

At which point the CRB would go up in a puff of obstinacy.

K

[Flyinglizard]

We need to take the CRB out of the classing stuff and keep it at the safety items only. They screw most of the racing up.
Let the ITAC do it all and get on with it. The snails pace of change has driven many away.

As I prior noted; the cars with multi valves have much better peripherals and thus dont make a lot more power with simple add ons. 10-15 % with much controller work
The older car with shittyexhaust manifolds show lots bigger improvements with a header, while the 4V cars often show a zero gain with most headers. MR 2, VW, 16V etc.

Keep on the street tire thing please.
MM

[Chip42]

Keep on the street tire thing please.

working on logo and sponsors. watch your inbox, we will have the package rolled out for CFR by turkey trots and it will be "open source" to any region that wants to borrow the webpage, decals, and rules.

[RSTPerformance]

That said, I also don't think the Audi drivers as a group have been as forthcoming in helping us to fix the claimed error by submitting dyno sheets (dyno runs are not expensive) like the Mr2 drivers did. Less complaining and more work/effort by them would have perhaps gotten this resolved sooner, and more favorably to them


Raymond "trying so hard to keep out of this... errrrr. It's soooo hard!" Blethen

[RSTPerformance]

Deleted... Rethought and going to go back to racing after one final thought: The issues with ITB and the ITAC/CRB have nothing to do with the Audi or any other specific car, its the people who make the decisions. We have moved on so please don't refer to our experience (it just makes me upset), our cars (they were fast before all the new cars were added to the class) or our performance (Its not all the car, we have a great crew) any longer.

The cars that win don't win because cars are classed "wrong." They win because the team they are on choose a good car, developed it, put a good driver behind the wheel, and figured out the correct car set up. Anyone can win with a weight penalty, if you don't think you can add weight for a session to you car and see how much slower you are... It's not a huge difference as the internet makes it out to be.

Raymond "Go out and built an ITB car, it's the best racing you will find on the globe if you are racing on a budget" Blethen

[Bill Miller]

Imagine how frustrating it is to be more involved than just reading about it. ;)

As I began racing with SCCA, I was often told that things operate in a backroom and don’t be surprised with the politics as well as decisions that just don’t make sense.
Then came about the process as a great way to minimize subjectivity, if it were to actually be utilized as intended.
I have since on from ITB but the whole deal still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If there had be openness, things would be different. My dealings with the multi-valve adder where a CRB member had specific interest in the Accord, that car gained weight associated with how the adder was documented, then lost weight right at the point where it was said no more weights would be adjusted for the time being in ITB. Seriously? When was that now, two years ago?

Many cars in the ITB class have not been provided the opportunity to be run through the process in a fair matter. Ways to handle the volume have been discussed way too often. A member submits the request, provides supporting information, it goes in line.

It was truly disappointing how all of things have been handled and the often perceived back room deals of SCCA sure seem legitimate to many people. I’m not saying that it is happening now, or even the ITAC could have done anything different. But hey, ask membership and the majority will say “politics as usual in racing.”

What I’m most disappointed in is that I felt we had the tools and the people in place to do things right and the way they should be in racing. We blew it. Yes, time to move on and do what can be done going forward.

Pretty much this. Those that were around back then will remember that I got shouted down pretty bad for suggesting that we implement and objective system for classifying cars that was based on a power/weight ratio (what Kirk refers to as the "Miller Ratio") for each class, and some defined and documented modifiers. I never suggested that it would be a "one and done" deal, but that it would get fine tuned as more data became available. Nope, something like that will NEVER work.


https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/450452736/hF6B84462/

LOL - same stuff, different day.

We can argue about consumer preferences but the simple fact is that mismanagement by the CRB (and its proxies) has chased real, live, racers out of ITB.

It is pointedly NOT an all-or-nothing proposition and the most surefire way to assure that "nothing" gets done is to set as the standard that it "all" gets done.

And with the paradigm established by The Process, "seems to be doing OK" is as bad a reason for doing nothing as "Dave Gran is winning every time he races" would have been for giving his Honda a lead trophy.

Since it seems that the CRB obstructionism has been resolved, all of the tools are in place to start making fixes. I'm sorry, ITAC guys, but to not do so is just a different brand of the same old silliness.

K

Indeed. But, what did I miss w.r.t. the CRB obstructionism being resolved?


Ok, that happened. It's over. The 30% rule is gone. The Accord, Prelude and MR2 are fixed. The Audi is in all likelihood at a number that is close to its actual output. One of the VWs is probably over weight at 30% but it's not off by much.

If you want perfection, sure, there's lot to get angry about. If you want close, very well balanced muti-marque racing, put down the keyboard and race IT.

I frankly don't care about whether we do ITB piecemeal or all at once. Either way we'll catch flak. Part and parcel with the "job." I just want it done RIGHT. With "RIGHT" not being "what Joe thinks is correct for his car." We get a lot of that.

With all due respect Jeff, you and I have had MANY discussion about the Rabbit GTI. Unlike the Audi, there's no other published number on the hp. Everything out there says it makes 90hp stock. It's also pretty well established that the stock exhaust manifold was a turd. But, there's nothing other than one guy's "I know a guy who lived next to a guy that heard of a guy that saw it written on a bathroom wall that there is one that makes 100hp". What's even worse, is if you do the math based on that number, the car is STILL heavy. And if you use the same 30% factor that the A2 GTI does, it's still heavy by ~90#. I know it hasn't gotten the press that the MR2 and Audi have, but the Rabbit GTI is the car that's the poster child for pulling the weight out of someone's ass. I've asked countless times, yet no one has been able to produce any documented evidence of why that car deserves that weight.

[quadzjr]

I have only raced against one ITB audi, and it was a clean car and a faster car than the field until he lost the wheel bearing.

That said.. it has been mentioned.. why not submit dyno data and your engine build especially if you have one? There are enough out there to gather that data to make a case if there is one.

Hell there is only one top flight accord that I know of (though I am here in the SE so I only see down here) and it's dyno sheets were submitted according to it's tuner.

As it has been said.. I was dumb enough to spend the stupid money and do the best I could to build the 10/10ths motor. I submitted many dyno plots.. and yes we are below 15%. most guys are around 6-8% gains.. My last grenade made around 12% I think. Driving around at 20% in ITB is a around 150lbs over weight. I would have continued to persue to correct the MR2 as it is still not right. The reason why I have not is because classing the car any lighter is pointless as you cannot get the car any ligher anyways. Actually, sadly, it should be an ITC car but I for damn sure do not want it to be there. If ITB is messed up I think ITC is far worse.. only a few cars that are competitive.

Thinking about it.. If you look ad ITC->ITB->ITA->ITS as you go up the classes the faster the class the more cars are competitive in that class. ITS is a great class right now with a good group of cars to choose from. Hence the point of the other ITS topic on this board.

[Knestis]

... Thinking about it.. If you look ad ITC->ITB->ITA->ITS as you go up the classes the faster the class the more cars are competitive in that class. ITS is a great class right now with a good group of cars to choose from. Hence the point of the other ITS topic on this board.

That makes complete sense because drivers who want to spend the coin necessary to be competitive, all other things being equal, are going to skew toward the faster class full of "cooler" cars. Conversely, someone inclined toward a BMW will likely be able to throw more discretionary money at his toy than someone leaning toward an old shitbox.

K

[JeffYoung]

Bill, I know almost ZERO about Rabbit GTIs. Zero. As I told you privately, if you want it corrected, you or someone else who has the data needs to submit it. I cannot do it on my own and this post after post of "I told Jeff about the Rabbit" is really getting old.

Kirk/Chip, I think the reason why it seems that there are more S chassises that can compete than B is because the PRocess appears to work better in R/S/A as you go up the speed chain. A 5 hp error in the Process in S means only 60 lbs or so, and way less than B - and as a percentage error is even less as cars in R/S/A tend to weigh more than B.

Having said that, Raymond is correct. I think it is the NOISE level about issues with B that is the issue, not the PRocess, the ITAC, the CRB or the aliens from Zeta Reticuli manipulating everything. There are a lot of chassis that can and have won in B, although its now going through what all IT classes are going through as older cars give way to newer ones.

[ajmr2]

most guys are around 6-8% gains.. My last grenade made around 12% I think. Driving around at 20% in ITB is a around 150lbs over weight. I would have continued to persue to correct the MR2 as it is still not right. The reason why I have not is because classing the car any lighter is pointless as you cannot get the car any ligher anyways. Actually, sadly, it should be an ITC car but I for damn sure do not want it to be there. If ITB is messed up I think ITC is far worse.. only a few cars that are competitive.

Very little additional weight to lose on my MR2 without me driving it remotely...

Please not ITC! :024:

[Rabbit05]

Jeff or Chip or to any ITAC or CRB member that has seen the Audi microchife. Does this mention the WE motor code ? If so , does anyone recollect the HP for that motor ? Or was it just KX specific ? The WE came in the very early Coupes and according to the factory manual it was rated at 100 hp.

-John

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I know almost ZERO about Rabbit GTIs. Zero. As I told you privately, if you want it corrected, you or someone else who has the data needs to submit it. I cannot do it on my own and this post after post of "I told Jeff about the Rabbit" is really getting old.



That data is readily available to pretty much anyone. Saying you can't do anything is a cop out. You don't need to know anything about the car to want to know why it's processed at a greater power gain than probably any other car in the ITCS. And "post after post"? That's a bit melodramatic don't you think?

[quadzjr]

Not sure what thr mk1 is classed at but I know the 92-95 honda is classed at something like 38%. Which makes me wonder. We know what a decent effort build hit. It hit process power so in this case thr process works. However, why was it processed not conservative like others and how did it get a percent not ending in a 0 or a 5? Since someone hit process power and it is assumed more development will continue will thr ITAC add weight?

I think the biggest problem with ITB is that there a few cars with moderate builds and dwcent driving will beat a field od well prepped and driven cars. I think the only reason they are not viewedas overdogs lile the E36 did is becasuse there are less of us. That is not an excuse to not fix it. Heck you can ask any driver that drives them.. they know they have the better car.

Though it comes out more often after they moved on.

[JeffYoung]

That data is readily available to pretty much anyone. Saying you can't do anything is a cop out. You don't need to know anything about the car to want to know why it's processed at a greater power gain than probably any other car in the ITCS. And "post after post"? That's a bit melodramatic don't you think?

Huh? Cop out? No, it's just asking the Rabbit GTI drivers or people interested in the car to do the same work that anyone else who wants a change in the weight on the car. Get your paperwork and submit it. Otherwise, it's just useless talk. The car was processed previously. You disagree with their conclusions. I'm not going to disturb those conclusions without evidence submitted by those who have it.

It's pretty simple really, and yes, it does seem to me that nearly every post of yours lately has included "and look at the Rabbit GTI in it." If it bothers you that much, send us the data and we'll take a look, just like I've told you several times in the past. If you aren't willing to do that, then I just don't see the basis for the complaining.

[Knestis]

Not sure what thr mk1 is classed at but I know the 92-95 honda is classed at something like 38%. Which makes me wonder. We know what a decent effort build hit. It hit process power so in this case thr process works. However, why was it processed not conservative like others and how did it get a percent not ending in a 0 or a 5? Since someone hit process power and it is assumed more development will continue will thr ITAC add weight?

I think the biggest problem with ITB is that there a few cars with moderate builds and dwcent driving will beat a field od well prepped and driven cars. I think the only reason they are not viewedas overdogs lile the E36 did is becasuse there are less of us. That is not an excuse to not fix it. Heck you can ask any driver that drives them.. they know they have the better car.

Though it comes out more often after they moved on.

The above - particularly the bit in bold - is evidence that we have come too far to the "what we know" side of things.

I'd propose that the "biggest problem with ITB" is that we spend too much time - literally years, now - trying to make angels dance on the heads of pins. WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PARSE OUT THE INFLUENCES OF "BUILD" AND "DRIVING." We spin around and around trying to make the mathematically derived numbers align with our biased, anecdotal observational non-data from on-track competition - the sure-fire way to CONTINUED paralysis, dysfunction, arguments, and mistrust.

Just run the damned cars and take the specification process out of the list of moving target variables. This has become a joke a decade in the making. That spreadsheet I left with the ITAC was started before I finished my studies at UVa, and that was three jobs ago for me...

:blink:

K

[JeffYoung]

More and more I agree. We just can't be worried about 3-4 hp or 5 ft lbs of torque in ITB. Process as best we can and let folks race.

The goal of the Process was never perfection. It was to use an objective standard with minimal adjustability to get cars close and let them race.

ITAC call tonight and I will advocate that we do this now, in the next 6 months, we split the cars up, we put blank weight lines for the total oddballs, we do everything else at 25% unless we have solid, solid evidence of more or less and we move on.

This is ridiculous, I agree.

[quadzjr]

More and more I agree. We just can't be worried about 3-4 hp or 5 ft lbs of torque in ITB. Process as best we can and let folks race.

The goal of the Process was never perfection. It was to use an objective standard with minimal adjustability to get cars close and let them race.

ITAC call tonight and I will advocate that we do this now, in the next 6 months, we split the cars up, we put blank weight lines for the total oddballs, we do everything else at 25% unless we have solid, solid evidence of more or less and we move on.

This is ridiculous, I agree.

Since when has the ITAC worried about torque in ITB? Not a single car in the class has been addressed in ITB that I am aware of. I am not talking 3-4 hp.. I am talking 30+% difference in torque yet it has never been addressed.

so a hypothetical case you have two cars.. with the same hp at 100 but one of the cars has 95 ft lbs.. and the other is at 125. Do you think these cars have the same potential? The process used currently would class them the same weight.

[Ron Earp]

so a hypothetical case you have two cars.. with the same hp at 100 but one of the cars has 95 ft lbs.. and the other is at 125. Do you think these cars have the same potential? The process used currently would class them the same weight.

I don't know if that situation exists or not, but if it does at some point the ITAC just has to say "tough".

It'd be a huge step to get the cars all classed using the same process. Huge. And after that the chips fall where they may. There will be cars to have, cars to not have, and cars to take a gamble on, just like any race series.

[matt batson]

Since when has the ITAC worried about torque in ITB? Not a single car in the class has been addressed in ITB that I am aware of. I am not talking 3-4 hp.. I am talking 30+% difference in torque yet it has never been addressed.

so a hypothetical case you have two cars.. with the same hp at 100 but one of the cars has 95 ft lbs.. and the other is at 125. Do you think these cars have the same potential? The process used currently would class them the same weight.

Just develop a Suzuki swift Gti .....100 hp and 1895 lbs....

[Knestis]

On torque - and particularly for ITB - I think Andy's quote was, "The juice ain't worth the squeeze."

I couldn't agree more. It's not a single measurement that matters, it's the shape of the curve. The reality that engine architectures tend to trade torque for RPMs (not surprising given the math involved in determining HP) decreases the importance of the issue, particularly given the IT category allowance to change final drive ratios. Prior to today's measuring/reporting standards, HP numbers varied a lot; adding torque figures only puts more potentially inconsistent numbers into the mix. The current POOMA for torque adjusters in other IT classes are just that - POOMA numbers. They do little more than mollify people who think there SHOULD be some difference; that this variable should be accommodated in the process. They potentially add another point of subjectivity, which is not generally good. Etc. Etc.

K

EDIT - Re: the "comes out more often after they moved on" nudge, nudge, wink, wink above, I absolutely DID love the fat torque curve of the MkIII Golf, particularly in traffic and in enduros. However, it translated into a benefit in a COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE area that I think of as "driveability." A low-polar-moment car is subjectively different to drive than a high PMI car. A tall car is different than a low car. And on it goes. I used an operative redline of 6000rpm with Pablo. If the process should account for "no poop at the lower end," should it give a weight break for "no poop at high revs" as well...? It just gets absurd.

[JeffYoung]

I just typed and lost a long response. This says it better in a shorter fashion. I may retype my additional points later tonight, but Kirk said it well.


On torque - and particularly for ITB - I think Andy's quote was, "The juice ain't worth the squeeze."

I couldn't agree more. It's not a single measurement that matters, it's the shape of the curve. The reality that engine architectures tend to trade torque for RPMs (not surprising given the math involved in determining HP) decreases the importance of the issue, particularly given the IT category allowance to change final drive ratios. Prior to today's measuring/reporting standards, HP numbers varied a lot; adding torque figures only puts more potentially inconsistent numbers into the mix. The current POOMA for torque adjusters in other IT classes are just that - POOMA numbers. They do little more than mollify people who think there SHOULD be some difference; that this variable should be accommodated in the process. They potentially add another point of subjectivity, which is not generally good. Etc. Etc.

K

EDIT - Re: the "comes out more often after they moved on" nudge, nudge, wink, wink above, I absolutely DID love the fat torque curve of the MkIII Golf, particularly in traffic and in enduros. However, it translated into a benefit in a COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE area that I think of as "driveability." A low-polar-moment car is subjectively different to drive than a high PMI car. A tall car is different than a low car. And on it goes. I used an operative redline of 6000rpm with Pablo. If the process should account for "no poop at the lower end," should it give a weight break for "no poop at high revs" as well...? It just gets absurd.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Agreeing with Kirk above, there IS a mechanism within the 'Process' to account for torque. The issue is that the number needs to be anomalous to the rest of the class. The V8's in ITR take a hit based on the fact that their numbers are outside the curve for the class.

The issue with that is there is usually something else there as a limiting factor if the HP fits inside the box. The 325 eta in ITA is an example. Well outside the box for torque but it's a low rever so no stink is made. One could argue the same for the C4 crossfire Vette.

If you had a 100hp/150ft-lb stock ITB car, I bet they would whack it with some weight for the torx. And I would probably support that. Currently there are lows and highs for torque in every class, and as long as those are within reason, there is no accounting for it.

Heck, this issue was one of the issues that dragged the 'documenting' of the Process down for a month or 2 IIRC. We debated the merits of accounting for it at all...then had to develop the framework by which it was to be applied if it was determined to be so.

I actually believe that debate led to a lack of confidence of the ITAC by the CRB during my tenue. Why? Because they thought we were trying to slice and dice the Process too thin, when in reality all we were doing was hashing out how you would document this sort of thing when/if you needed to apply it.

[Chip42]

objectivity is good. the process, in that light, is good.

BUT that process relies on a published number, which in the case of ITB, is not the best data point due to the myriad factors that have been covered before. KK is right that adding a second point witch is even more difficult to find, spans 3+ decades of standards, is hard to identify objectively in dyno plots that we don't get many of anyway, and can be masked with some allowed mods is not the answer. If anything changes - and to date no one is advocating any changes - it has to be to a similarly simple formula based on concrete, available data.

regardless of that, I think ITB needs some attention. actual attention - not just people typing into an internet forum. dismissing the offended of ITB in an effort to ignore the problems is not how this is supposed to work, IMHO. ITB IS, largely, a class full of people and cars who have been at it a LONG time. ITB IS NOT, currently, a growth class - there's a lot of reasons for this but things like B-Spec point out that this class is well positioned for some resurgence. Further upsetting the established ranks will only drive ITB deeper into contraction while getting it right has benefits across the board.

you can't please everyone with any solution - to me the more important thing than putting this behind us is making sure we maximize the % of people pleased within reasonable efforts.

if that means we have to stare down some sacred cows, then so be it.

EDIT - I just read some of the later posts above. I don't believe that anyone still reading / posting in this thread or the many before it are naive enough to think that differences in basic architecture don't affect how a car drives, and that this might create advantages or disadvantages in certain situations. hell I'd day that aspect of multi marquee racing is what most of us LIKE MOST about racing in IT. but we have to be sure to not dismiss grumblings just because we believe them to be born of ignorance or lack of efforts to overcome or exploit the inherent characteristics of some cars. yeah, some cars are gonna be duds. that's fine. but that doesn't mean that there arent' some real issues here, too.

[Knestis]

As "attention" goes, you're talking to a guy who has literally hundreds of hours of effort into that spreadsheet. I know about attention...

...but at this point, Chip, I don't know what you are actually proposing. If you're suggesting NOT "relying on a published number," and defaulting right past the basic math to "what we know," you have completely lost my confidence. If you are suggesting substantive changes to the Process - the one that hasn't EVEN BEEN USED YET ON ITB - then you've REALLY killed my enthusiasm.

The Blethens can't PROVE that the Audi does NOT make 1.5x stock quoted HP. Rabbit GTI owners can't PROVE that they make less power than the specs current think. Asking them to do so in order to get a reduction is ludicrous. Similarly, an owner of car that underperforms in the real world, relative to the standard power multiplier, can't PROVE that it can't make process power. Asking them to do that is equally pointless.

The general intent of the Process - from one of the guys who beat it into existence - is to use the standard math UNTIL AND UNLESS compelling evidence surfaces that a different multiplier should be used. Following that approach is not "dismissing" anyone.

And as far as "contraction" goes, every single month that goes by without using the tools already codified and in place is another reason for the class to crap out.

K

[quadzjr]

I was not calling you out kirk.. in fact I am not sure we discussed it before. But I have talked to both new mk3 vw cars that were first run this year not developed ams waxed the field. The other was a mk2 vw driver after the sic as he is moving to its next year. He says that there is no reason my car should ever beat him.

If you watch the video of the SIC you see what I mean.

[Flyinglizard]

HP as raced can be measured pretty well right now with the phone apps. They are pretty close and give a very good reference if not actual power/torque.
This may be far better than factory HP ratings as it measures actual accel rates. Covers the questions of Torque vs HP VS CC etc.
All we really care about is acceleration anyway.
Maybe IT could move from power/weight to accel rates, of 40-75mph. Much easier to measure and predict relative performance.
Some cars could be base lined with a whistler and a phone app as long as you had scales and a legal build.
Check compression, cam, cam timing, throttle body, alternator function.
Just the non working alt is 2-3HP.
Make sure that all of the tires are at 40psi, run the Toy and the VWs . The VW MK 3 is still about 50-60 light with the mega squirt .
:) MM

[lateapex911]

And the band played on.....

MM, beyond the basic philosophical issues , how doe you propose that the ITAC actual DO that? When Andy and I were on the ITAc, would you have thought we should have flown to say Sebring and then talked some guys into letting us measure their cars??
There's no "Run it or you're dq'ed" clause that can be used. And once in, how are we to know that the data is actually good? Good as in robust, repeatable, and not screwed with? We don't. And we won't, whether we are looking for over OR underdogs...

The BEST way to get data is to process the cars, and let people react.
Like the MR2 guys.
(Unless the new guys have memory and see what all the data got the MR2 guys....then it's likely they won't bother)


In a category with 300 cars, some will have high tq and won't rev, or high tq and awful trans ratios, or vice versa, or high tq, high revs, but the engine falls apart every hr of use and the thing is struts all around and can't make weight.

And, if there IS a car that has it all, then the ITAC looks closer at it and makes a change as warranted.

[Chip42]

Kirk, I was addressing what I thought I read from you saying "it's good enough." and being somewhat dismissive to the argument about peaky vs. flat power curves - more on that in the future. in general I wasn't proposing anything other than "be open to seeing it differently."

I agree that we can't REALLY say that the process does or does not work until we see how good it is when implemented in B. seems to work well in A and up. I agree that the math should be run as published unless there's piles of data saying otherwise. this is how we have been operating. one of the main reasons we haven't gotten all of B on the same process at this point is the confusion over the basic input of HP - there's too many standards and so little good "OEM" data about so many of the cars in B. BUT, what cars are run, with good modern data - most hondas, most VWs, anything with 4 valves/cyl (assuming the rest of the 4AGE cars were published using the 20% multiplier like the MR2) are MOSTLY pretty even - with some exceptions. And yes, some exceptions are going to happen, no one is going for angels on a pin head here. but people choosing to NOT race because their car simply hasn't got a prayer isn't showing the balance we are making to be close enough, either. some people feel very strongly that this is the case. some of those people have cars on the above list and really do have enough development and talent to have a read on this. and it's also likely that they are making process numbers. so there's already evidence that the math we're using now isn't getting it done. conclusive? no. but not something I'm prepared to ignore, either.

believe me when I say I'm WELL aware of the inability to prove a negative. right now we're trying to get the process, as published, run through all of ITB as we've said is our goal. AFAIK *I* am the only committee member who believes the balance issues are real. right now, THAT is a subject for internet demagoguery, running standard 25% math on the rest of ITB is the actual thing being done.

[Knestis]

We're getting sucked into making judgments of "how well the process works" based on observations of on-track competitiveness, using miniscule sample numbers and an utter lack of control of other variables.

I'd agree to make adjustments to cars - or the process, since it can be diddled to effectively adjust individual cars - if and only if I'm convinced that they are all being driven with exactly the same talent, with the same tire budgets, the same engineering, and the same attention to detail preparation.

Put differently, why didn't I "wax the field" on my first trip to the IT Fest...? I had the magic Golf.

If OBSERVED on-track parity is going to be the ultimate measure of success, just skip to the end and start making actual competition adjustments (bleah). Go fast? Whatever you are driving gets lead. Just don't make the mistake of being a less talented driver in the chassis run by the fast guys or its double-whammy time.

K

[Chip42]

dude you are over reacting. I'm only saying that people are frustrated and some are walking away. we need to fix that. part one of fixing that is completing the ITB reprocess. As it stands now, there is no magic car in the field, there's a small number of very good choices. then there are some real duds and some middling cars that likely need some development to show their potential. basically like in the rest of the category. on that, we agree completely.

there are only 5 IT classes containing hundreds of cars. It's unrealistic to assume that every one of them is going to be fighting for a podium every weekend. not every car is going to be a winner, even if god himself rubs Carol Smith's essence all over them. we get that.

BUT AFTER ITB is finally processed, and AFTER that has had time to settle out, we owe it to the membership to investigate their ongoing concerns. There's a lot of grumpy ITB guys out there with a pretty consistent message. they MIGHT have a point and we cannot disregard that.

oh, and ON TRACK data is not an input in my mind - it's a feedback loop. relative parity on track, as measured in numerous ways and from knowledgeable analysis, tells us if the system works or not. you can't disregard it completely.

[Flyinglizard]

Of course you can run al of the cars. But you cantake a well built power train that doesn not make the expected power and verify that fact pretty easy.

[Knestis]

BUT AFTER ITB is finally processed, and AFTER that has had time to settle out, we owe it to the membership to investigate their ongoing concerns. There's a lot of grumpy ITB guys out there with a pretty consistent message. they MIGHT have a point and we cannot disregard that. ...

Sorry - I misunderstood the direction the conversation was going. It sounded like addressing grumpiness was part of (or ahead of) getting "fully processed" and "time to settle out."

Get that done. Stat. Some of us got frustrated and walked away influenced by the ongoing dithering, evident lack of direction, and hints that what is good about IT was going to be lost to micromanagement of spec lines.

K

[seckerich]

On our worst day IT has by far the most stable multi make racing in SCCA. What we make a big deal of would make any other class laugh. Ask GTL how it feels to be one step away from elimination. Get it done and fix the odd balls later. :023:

[Chip42]

on our worst day it has by far the most stable multi make racing in scca. What we make a big deal of would make any other class laugh. Ask gtl how it feels to be one step away from elimination. Get it done and fix the odd balls later. :023:

amen

[Bill Miller]

Huh? Cop out? No, it's just asking the Rabbit GTI drivers or people interested in the car to do the same work that anyone else who wants a change in the weight on the car. Get your paperwork and submit it. Otherwise, it's just useless talk. The car was processed previously. You disagree with their conclusions. I'm not going to disturb those conclusions without evidence submitted by those who have it.

It's pretty simple really, and yes, it does seem to me that nearly every post of yours lately has included "and look at the Rabbit GTI in it." If it bothers you that much, send us the data and we'll take a look, just like I've told you several times in the past. If you aren't willing to do that, then I just don't see the basis for the complaining.

That's not entirely correct Jeff. The car was one of the first cars to get a weight adjustment as part of TGR, but it wasn't 'processed'. At least not in the context of what that means today. It had 100# taken off the spec weight, but that wasn't based on any process, but more of a "Yeah, that sounds about right, and we're not going to make massive adjustments" situation.

Ask some of your former ITAC colleagues that were around then. There's no data that supports how the weight was arrived at, it was, as Kirk says, a POOMA.

And my position ("basis for complaining" as you put it) is, and always has been, transparency and objectivity. No one should have to ask how a given car arrived at a given weight. Either it's a straight process output, or there's published information as to why a deviation from the process was made. That hasn't changed in the 10+ years we've been talking about it on this site.

[lateapex911]

Bill, just curious...why NOT send them the data and ask that it be run through the process?? yea, I know, you'd rather have them 'just do it", but there are hundreds of cars...
When I was ON the ITAC, and I wanted some car to have action taken, I put on my member cap and wrote a letter, with data supporting whatever position I was taking. That letter went into the system, was put on the board for discussion, made it to the con calls agenda, and was processed as appropriate. Then I got an update that said I could read Fastrack for results.

Thats how the system works, even for those who are "inside".

I got calls and emails from guys racing, and i'd discuss things with them happily, but my advice was ALWAYS the same, write us a letter, as I can't just wave a wand and make crap happen without a letter.

Not trying to be adversarial, but while IT.com has been a GREAT resource for the members to communicate with the ITAC (more so in the past) and for the ITAC to reach out to the members, it's not an official submission entry point.

[JeffYoung]

Actually Bill, it's changed a lot over the last 10 years. Transparency and objectivity and repeatability were just ideas for a LONG time and now are, more so than ever, actually a reality. We've got a stable Process, it hasn't changed in a few years (in the early years it was changing frequently as it was developed -- necessary but problematic).

So, right now, we do have a lot of cars in the ITCS that were Processed using different formulations of the Process than we have now. We'll take a look at them, but we have to respect what previous ITACs have done. Otherwise, like it or not, you'd have situations like the Miata (weight up, weight down, weight up) over and over and that is very damaging to the class.

I still don't see any real reason for you to essentially object to doing what everyone else has done, and what I've asked you to do for y ears, and that is put your information together and submit it so we can review. Is it really that hard to do if the answer is, as you say, so obvious?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I heard today that ITB and ITC were going away so that we could create two new classes above ITR. The idea is to draw in BMWCC members and the drift crowd.

Just kidding.

:)

Look team, this is a monumental undertaking that has a bunch of front end work before you can just 'process' cars. At least 3 different crank HP standards need conversion factors, then it's possible that each of those different eras get different multipliers. Carbed cars make huge peak gains...why? Probably because that era had hp choking emissions and poor build tolerances but they have a tough time tuning the actual curve. Lot's of little things to think of.

You do all that work in committee, then you plug the cars in and then you have to go through them one by one to see if they 'make sense' per the Ops manual. Then after all THAT is done, you have to present your process and conclusions to the CRB in hopes that they don't shit-can it. And lets say they don't chit-can the entire concept, just 2 cars that they feel are 'wrong'. Do you hold your ground and explain the value of the Process again or do you let them squeeze you into a number you can't back up or isn't done the same as the others?

The ITAC is getting there, be patient. It's a process with 100 heads. Each needs to be chopped up systematically in hopes of success.

[JeffYoung]

I heard today that ITB and ITC were going away so that we could create two new classes above ITR. The idea is to draw in BMWCC members and the drift crowd.

Just kidding.

:)

Look team, this is a monumental undertaking that has a bunch of front end work before you can just 'process' cars. At least 3 different crank HP standards need conversion factors, then it's possible that each of those different eras get different multipliers. Carbed cars make huge peak gains...why? Probably because that era had hp choking emissions and poor build tolerances but they have a tough time tuning the actual curve. Lot's of little things to think of.

You do all that work in committee, then you plug the cars in and then you have to go through them one by one to see if they 'make sense' per the Ops manual. Then after all THAT is done, you have to present your process and conclusions to the CRB in hopes that they don't shit-can it. And lets say they don't chit-can the entire concept, just 2 cars that they feel are 'wrong'. Do you hold your ground and explain the value of the Process again or do you let them squeeze you into a number you can't back up or isn't done the same as the others?

The ITAC is getting there, be patient. It's a process with 100 heads. Each needs to be chopped up systematically in hopes of success.

All very true.

[Bill Miller]

Actually Bill, it's changed a lot over the last 10 years. Transparency and objectivity and repeatability were just ideas for a LONG time and now are, more so than ever, actually a reality. We've got a stable Process, it hasn't changed in a few years (in the early years it was changing frequently as it was developed -- necessary but problematic).

So, right now, we do have a lot of cars in the ITCS that were Processed using different formulations of the Process than we have now. We'll take a look at them, but we have to respect what previous ITACs have done. Otherwise, like it or not, you'd have situations like the Miata (weight up, weight down, weight up) over and over and that is very damaging to the class.

I still don't see any real reason for you to essentially object to doing what everyone else has done, and what I've asked you to do for y ears, and that is put your information together and submit it so we can review. Is it really that hard to do if the answer is, as you say, so obvious?

Jeff,

I think you misunderstood me. What I was referring to that hasn't changed for over 10 years is what I want the IT process to be, transparent, objective, and the deviations documented with published reasons for the deviation.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the hard work that you and many others have put in, to get things where they are today. I know it has been a Herculean task. But for things to be truly equitable, everyone needs to get measured by the same yardstick. So, while there are several cars that were processed via different standards, if the standards change, those folks deserve to have their cars re-processed. It may benefit some, but it may hurt others. However, if it's done objectively, you can't say someone got a raw deal.

[Jimopel]

I have an older,1970s ITB car ,Is it true in the redoing of this class that some cars are going to be removed. Don't want to fix it up to not have a spot in IT. Thanks Jim

[quadzjr]

I see no reason why they would remove any cars. If you want your cars to possibly classed more correctly (if it doea not make 25% gains). Submit your dyno plot, build sheet, and a letter to class your car via the process.

You running an opel? Always been a fan of the Opel GT.

[lateapex911]

I have an older,1970s ITB car ,Is it true in the redoing of this class that some cars are going to be removed. Don't want to fix it up to not have a spot in IT. Thanks Jim
Theres been talk of not processing cars that aren't being run, but...how does the ITAC actually KNOW what cars aren't being run?
They COULD list the cars getting ignored/dropped in Fastrack, but ask any tech inspector how many guys show up each spring with blank stares on their faces when they are asked why their cars didn't get safety updates that were announced multiple times in Fastrack, and you'll see the pitfalls in THAT plan.
So it's probably safe to say they'll not go that route.

[JeffYoung]

Just me speaking here:

There may be SOME older ITB and C cars that remain on the ITCS but have their weight removed pending a request (with appropriate documentation) to have the car processed and the weight relisted. I don't think there will be many of those.

So, no, no running cars (or non-running for that matter) will be delisted from the ITCS.

[Jimopel]

Yes it's an opel gt,2000,2001,2002 Narrc champ.Had a few medical problems in the past few years so no money to race.
Looking at the weights verses horse power,what standard are we using? I know that many of the older cars numbers are not sae and there for somewhat inflated. Jim

[JeffYoung]

Cool car. As a fellow oddball driver, I salute you.....

SAE gross v. net is a big issue. We are working off of net numbers, so if we encounter an SAE gross rating we'll have to discount it. There are some means to do that but it can be tricky especially when you throw in some ratings that are DIN.

Wiki says 102 gross in 71, 83 gross in 73 due to compression reduction. Is that correct?

[Chip42]

If you have a dyno plot and some build info that would REALLY help us as the gross-net conversion is not straight math but car dependent.

[Gary L]

SAE gross v. net is a big issue. We are working off of net numbers, so if we encounter an SAE gross rating we'll have to discount it. There are some means to do that but it can be tricky especially when you throw in some ratings that are DIN. (emphasis mine)

If you have the DIN rating for a US market engine, you should be golden IMO, and most European makes published the DIN ratings alongside SAE gross numbers for the four years in question ('68 thru '71 MY). The conversion factor is well established, and basically amounts to a 1% reduction (1.0142 I believe) of the DIN rating to come up with SAE net. Beats the Hell out of making a WAG based on a "discounted" SAE gross number. Yes... I realize this does nothing for US makes, but I'd bet you can find DIN numbers for most European/Japanese cars, including the car in question here (Opel GT).

[quadzjr]

When I was looking for a cool RWD car for IT I looked at the opel. From what I found none of the GT cars that I was able to locate had the 100 hp engine. All had the 80 something hp engine. Maybe I did not search well enough but it correlates to what wiki says.

"Opel reduced the compression ratio of the 1.9 L engine used in the US and output fell to 83 hp (SAE). "

[Gary L]

When I was looking for a cool RWD car for IT I looked at the opel. From what I found none of the GT cars that I was able to locate had the 100 hp engine. All had the 80 something hp engine. Maybe I did not search well enough but it correlates to what wiki says.

"Opel reduced the compression ratio of the 1.9 L engine used in the US and output fell to 83 hp (SAE). "

Two points:

You left off a couple of words of the quote, specifically - "In 1971....".

So if the Wiki is correct, there were high compression engines imported prior to 1971. Since the listing in the ITCS covers 1968 thru 1973, the process would begin by using the higher hp engine as the starting point. This primarily due to the legal update/backdate of the long block and induction system made available by the rules.

[quadzjr]

One of the many problems with fixing ITB. Did the car come with the 102 and the 83 in teh states? are the same motor sans compression? what CR is the what?

Run through the process it would result in a big difference.

102 hp= 102*1.25*17 = 2170
83 hp = 83*1.25*17 = 1765

car factory weighed right aroudn 2k lbs.. not sure if the lower number can be achieved.

[Chip42]

IF the car came with the earlier, higher CR engine, then only the earlier, high CR HP number is used. then again, it's SAE Gross HP so the equations above don't work regardless.

[Gary L]

A quick look with Google revealed the following:

http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=71588

and

http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/opel/gt_j/gt_j/1971.html

Don't have a clue where those two websites came up with the numbers, but assuming it was copied from something official, the early high CR (9.5:1) motor apparently had 89 DIN hp. I also found references to "90 PS" for that motor in European Opel forums, etc.

So our (USA) 102 SAE gross hp motor was more than likely around 88 or 89 SAE net hp, dropping to 83 SAE net hp in 1971 or 72 when they lowered the compression ratio. Assuming no other major changes, a 5 or 6 hp drop makes a lot more sense than the apparent 19 hp drop from 102 to 83... the latter being an instance of apples vs oranges, so to speak.

[Jimopel]

Thank all of you!This was a great learning adventure.
The numbers you are looking at are right as published,but after some checking I see how hard it is to classify a car!Turns out same high cr engine in Germany has 90 hp,when translated to us it comes out to about 88 hp.
This makes me feel better as my race engine doesn't make more than 95hp ,so now I'm seeing real vs advertised .Thanks again everyone hope to see some of you on the track this spring.Jim

[AE86ITA]

The wait is over for some of us Toyota Corollas, FX-16 and Nissan Sentra 1.6L B13
http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/TB%2014-02.pdf


Race On