Just out of curiosity, Anyone knows how the ITB weight recalculation is going?
Any hints,
Printable View
Just out of curiosity, Anyone knows how the ITB weight recalculation is going?
Any hints,
I'd like to tell you it's nearly done, but it is not. expect some updates soon, I promise.
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.
Matt / ITAC
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.Quote:
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
Note that weight adjustments are allowed within the rules year.
- GA
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.
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.
Good job guys, keep up the good work. :023:
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.Quote:
Note that weight adjustments are allowed within the rules year.
This is simply an observation, not a suggestion that the ITAC is not making good project. It is a complex task.
Terry
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?
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.
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 :)
Can anyone give us an update of the progress on this??
keep your eye on fastrack. we're working on it but we aren't there yet.
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.
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.
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.
Ok is September alreary, do we have any news ee can chew on?
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.
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.
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.
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
I think I'll just pick a weight and post it on the sides of my car. Who's to know?????
As long as it matches what you put in DLB, you're good to go, Chuck. :023:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.