ITAC Membership

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And no, I'm not satisfied w/ your answer, because it never really addressed my original question, which was about the Rabbit GTI 1.8 . I asked you what the weight would be in both ITB and ITC, based on your 'standardized method'. Somebody else also asked for the weight of the 1.8 8v Scirocco.

... And I've already given you that answer... Without having a full VTS sheet to understand the brakes, transmission ratios, etc... and just going off of your 90hp estimate for stock hp... initial weights come in as follows:

Rabbit GTI 1.8L:
ITC ~ 2250lbs
ITB ~ 2050lbs

But, again, that's before talking to anyone who knows anything about these cars... Given the fact that it has almost 20 more stock hp than the 1.6L, and given the performance of the 1.6L in ITC, some discussion would have to take place as to whether or not these weights would seem reasonable...

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
When I asked for the 1.7 VWs to be moved to ITC, I also asked for the 1.8 A1 8v cars to be moved as well (as did others). The FasTrack response was that the cars were 'too fast'. Yet only 2-3 months later, the ITAC is recommending that the 1.7 cars be moved to ITC. Either the initial request didn't get due consideration, or something changed in those couple of months. Maybe you were wrong about the 1.8 8v A1 cars as well.

The initial request was rejected, and some of us on the ITAC insisted that this be revisited. But you already know this because you and I have corresponded about this previously. I personally put up a pretty decent fight to help get the 1.7Ls moved to ITC... But let's look at some "evidence" when comparing the 1.7Ls to the 1.8Ls... The 1.7's make very little more hp than the 1.6L, and most who we talked to say the 1.7L is a dog even compared to the 1.6L... The 1.8L, on the other hand, makes almost 20hp more in stock trim... makes moving it a little harder to justify.

Additionally, things were and are still changing... We are very close to having PCAs implemented, which, as you are well aware, change things a bit... We can now move cars without a battle over adjusting the weight (with PCAs)... We are also beginning to take a more global look at IT to see what classifications might need consideration WITHOUT having to receive a request to move them or adjust them... etc. etc. etc...

So, just because I don't have the e-mails any longer that detailed the information I professed to having, doesn't mean I didn't have it... Oh, and by the way... I NEVER said I had any "concrete info" on the 1.8L motors... I was referring to the HP output of the 1.6L motors, which you say is around 99hp, and I was told was more in the neighborhood of 105-112hp... Either way, it seems we at least agree that the 1.6L needs no adjustments in ITC...

A reality that many are going to have to face is that there are going to be cases where some cars just fit the scope of one class better than another, even if they end up being somewhat underdogs in the class they are in.... Every class has a range of performance, and some cars are naturally going to fall in the lower end of that range... Keep in mind the intent of IT before you start getting up in arms about this, because nowhere in our charter as ITAC members have we ever said it was our intent to change the intent of IT... We are trying to make it better... make competition closer, but in the end, we are still only trying to balance things better than in the past... there are still going to be cars that just don't quite fit. I have a feeling they will be few and far between, and if the NB classification in ITC works out, then that may open the door for some other options for some other cars...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited August 13, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

I had a nice, long response typed out, but my internet connection went down, and I lost it. I'll have to sit down and re-craft it later. In the mean time, could you please run those same numbers (ITB and ITC weight, the way you did it for the Rabbit GTI) on the PL-510?

Thanks!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
In the mean time, could you please run those same numbers (ITB and ITC weight, the way you did it for the Rabbit GTI) on the PL-510?

Thanks!

Bill,

Rather than just beating around the bush... why don't you just come out and say whatever it is you want to say? It's been my experience with you that you'll ask all these questions, take the pieces of the answers that suit you, then turn them around to attack me, trying to make some point in the process... Just make your point and let's get on with it.

In the meantime, it's silly to run the 510 numbers for ITC, since the ratios for ITC were derived using the 510, the VW, and the CRX... so the weight would come out exactly where it is, 2170...

For ITB, the weight would be something like 1950lbs...

What exactly is it you are trying to prove/disprove here? I've tried to answer every question you have asked... Lay it out on the table and let's let everyone know what point you are trying to make...

Sorry if this note sounds a little defensive/hostile... but I can never tell if you are genuinely asking, or if you are winding up to take a swing at my credibility...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited August 15, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

So, what you're saying is that, for ITC, there are no "adders" or "subtracters" for the 510/CRX/1.6VW, and that the ratio is spot on for those three cars. Is that the way it worked out? I thought things like RWD and IRS were "adders" and things like FWD were "subtracters".

Like I said, I had a long response typed out, and I lost it due to an internet glitch. I just didn't have the time to re-craft it, yesterday.

Here's some of what I was going to say:

You speak of needing a full VTS for the Rabbit GTI, w/ info on brakes, gear ratios, etc. to be able to get closer to what the spec. weight should be. The brake data and gear ratios are right there in the ITCS, on the spec. line for the car, as are things like valve size, compression ratio, wheelbase, etc. What other information would you need from a VTS that you don't already have? And, 90hp stock is not 'my estimate', that's the factory published value.

You seem to like making it seem like these things are my opinion. The 99hp, in IT trim, for a 1.6 VW motor was a direct quote from Dick Shine, which he posted here. 90hp is the VW published value for a 1.8 Rabbit GTI (along w/ 100 lb-ft of torque). Unlike you, I don't just throw numbers around, I quote what I consider to be reputable and reliable sources. You, on the other hand, make claims that the factory is understating stock hp numbers, yet offer no evidence to back it up.

You also make statments like "The 1.8L, on the other hand, makes almost 20hp more in stock trim... ". And while you could make the case that 15 is 'almost 20', in this case, I think you're trying to slant things to support your position. Stock hp on a FI 1.6 VW motor is 75. That's a factory published value, just like 90hp for the Rabbit GTI.

This one also gets me.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Every class has a range of performance, and some cars are naturally going to fall in the lower end of that range... Keep in mind the intent of IT before you start getting up in arms about this, because nowhere in our charter as ITAC members have we ever said it was our intent to change the intent of IT... We are trying to make it better... make competition closer, but in the end, we are still only trying to balance things better than in the past... there are still going to be cars that just don't quite fit.</font>

You've come out and stated, on more than one occasion, that you're targeting the top performance level in a class when you classify/move cars. And w/ PCA's in your tool bag, why would there be any cars that don't fit? If a car doesn't fit, it should get moved to a different class, and the weight adjusted.

And while you may say you're not trying to change the intent of IT, you certainly are doing it.

And if you think I'm taking swings at your credibility, it's because, time and again, you state your opinions as if they were facts and make claims w/o providing any supporting evidence.

Let's look at that 510/GTI example. Cars make similar power in IT trim (20% increase on 96 is 115, 115 is almost a 28% gain over 90. One car is RWD w/ IRS while the other one is FWD. One car is carbed w/ a 4-spd, and the other is FI w/ a close-ratio 5-spd. How do they end up 80-100# apart in spec weight, especially since the 510 fits the ITC model exactly? You want to make claims like this, back them up. If you provide evidence to support your claims and arguements, you won't see me taking any shots at your credibility.

/edit/ Something I left out from my previous response was why do you have a 'battle' if you want to change the weight when you move a car? It's already there in the ITCS, no PCA's/comp. adjustments needed. What reasoning to the ones who are 'battling' give for not being able to use the rules as currently written?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited August 15, 2004).]

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

So, what you're saying is that, for ITC, there are no "adders" or "subtracters" for the 510/CRX/1.6VW, and that the ratio is spot on for those three cars. Is that the way it worked out? I thought things like RWD and IRS were "adders" and things like FWD were "subtracters".

You've come out and stated, on more than one occasion, that you're targeting the top performance level in a class when you classify/move cars. And w/ PCA's in your tool bag, why would there be any cars that don't fit? If a car doesn't fit, it should get moved to a different class, and the weight adjusted.

And while you may say you're not trying to change the intent of IT, you certainly are doing it.

Let's look at that 510/GTI example. Cars make similar power in IT trim (20% increase on 96 is 115, 115 is almost a 28% gain over 90. One car is RWD w/ IRS while the other one is FWD. One car is carbed w/ a 4-spd, and the other is FI w/ a close-ratio 5-spd. How do they end up 80-100# apart in spec weight, especially since the 510 fits the ITC model exactly? You want to make claims like this, back them up. If you provide evidence to support your claims and arguements, you won't see me taking any shots at your credibility.

/edit/ Something I left out from my previous response was why do you have a 'battle' if you want to change the weight when you move a car? It's already there in the ITCS, no PCA's/comp. adjustments needed. What reasoning to the ones who are 'battling' give for not being able to use the rules as currently written?

Bill,

I don't know about everyone else, but the banter between you and Darin is getting old. It seems like you are getting peeved that he isn't acting as your personal liason to the ITAC by answering every question you have. "Run these numbers". "What about those numbers?" "How about the numbers for the xxx". We love to be on this board but for goodness sake, back off. (Darin can handle himself but you seemingly are looking to fight ALL THE TIME) Seems like you could take these types of requests off-line - or even better, write a letter with your hypothosis and supportive facts.

OK, on to some of your issues:

Types of things that are adders: VW - FI, Close ratio 5-speed. 510 - IRS, RWD.

Net total - tie.

Why wouldn't there be cars that don't fit? Because, as we have also stated time and time again, is that PCA's are NOT meant to be Prod-style comp adjustments. We are not looking to get every car withing a pin-head of each other...just bring the haves and the have nots closer together. With only 4 classes, there will always be cars that are too good for the lower class and not quite good enough for the upper. If that isn't the way you would like to see it, then I would suggest you request a change in the overall philosophy of IT - which hasn't changed as of this minute. There still is no guarantee of competitivness...but we want to make every effort to do what is right for the class from a 10,000 foot view - and address peoples individual letters with the class in mind.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[ITSRX7]

Edit - duplicate

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited August 15, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Types of things that are adders: VW - FI, Close ratio 5-speed. 510 - IRS, RWD.

Net total - tie.

Ok Andy, if the 'adders' are a tie, why would the cars (Rabbit GTI and 510) differ by 80-100#, if they were classed together?

And that's pretty much what I expected regarding the 'no guarantee...' clause, it'll get trotted out when it's convenient. But then again, maybe it's just me that sees things like PCA's and the 'no guarantee...' clause as not being internally consistent.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Ok Andy, if the 'adders' are a tie, why would the cars (Rabbit GTI and 510) differ by 80-100#, if they were classed together?

And that's pretty much what I expected regarding the 'no guarantee...' clause, it'll get trotted out when it's convenient. But then again, maybe it's just me that sees things like PCA's and the 'no guarantee...' clause as not being internally consistent.

Bill,

None of us were in on the original classifications - obviously. Trying to 'predict' what other factors other regimes used when classing is impossible. I know you will probably come back and claim this is a cop-out, but the facts are the facts - you ask a question we just don't have the answer for.

We work in the present and for the future.

As far as PCA's go, the orginal intent was to be able to correct mistakes and make a low quantity of changes that would add to the category as a whole. It wasn't to go through the whole class list and try and bring everyone in line. Always has been and you know it.

When you look at 'comp-adjustments' and the IT philosophy, they aren't consistent. But when you pay attention to the ITAC intent statements for PCA's and what we have told you here, it is what it is. What is it? Read BOLD above, maybe twice.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...... maybe it's just me that sees things like PCA's and the 'no guarantee...' clause as not being internally consistent.

In the begining, it ws "No gurantee", and up until now, it really meant, "Take it as it comes, and if there are errors or misclassing, well, tough nuts...".

Now, it's "No guartantee", but it really means "we'll take a few more cracks at getting things closer, but we can't make everything perfect...racer beware".

Seems like progress to me.

(And this from a guy whose car could have been considered a poster child for the need for PCAs, but finds itself in the classic too slow for A and too fast for B situation.)

Just like life, racing DOES come with ONE guarantee: There are NO guarantees!

Nice to see the folks at the top trying harder though...



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Bill,

None of us were in on the original classifications - obviously. Trying to 'predict' what other factors other regimes used when classing is impossible. I know you will probably come back and claim this is a cop-out, but the facts are the facts - you ask a question we just don't have the answer for.

What question is that Andy? Darin gave me numbers for the Rabbit GTI and Datsun 510, both in ITB and ITC, based on the current formula you guys (ITAC) are using. What's that have to do w/ 'other regimes'?

We work in the present and for the future.

As far as PCA's go, the orginal intent was to be able to correct mistakes and make a low quantity of changes that would add to the category as a whole. It wasn't to go through the whole class list and try and bring everyone in line. Always has been and you know it.

When you look at 'comp-adjustments' and the IT philosophy, they aren't consistent. But when you pay attention to the ITAC intent statements for PCA's and what we have told you here, it is what it is. What is it? Read BOLD above, maybe twice.

AB

Well Andy, that's one of the main things I don't agree with with PCA's. You're going to 'pick and choose' the cars that will get consideration or get adjusted. One of the main concerns w/ any kind of adjustment process, was that it would potentially lead to favoritism, etc. I think, and this is just my opinion, that by NOT going through ALL of the cars, and seeing what the weight would be, based on the new system, is actually creating a system that is potentially worse than what we have today.

You're creating a mechanism that will better facilitate favoritism, and the 'no guarantee' clause gets trotted out as an easy way to justify why Car X doesn't get consideration/adjustment. You can say this is 'black helicopters' all you want, but w/o better internal consistency, that's the way I see it.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[planet6racing]

Can you guys just get your own forum and leave Rules and Regs for the rest of us to actually talk about the Rules and Regs? Every single topic in this area has seemed to degrade into an arguement between you two and, quite frankly, I'm tired of trying to muddle through it all to see if there is actually anything of interest there.

I know I could just not click on the thread, and believe me, I usually just skip this area, but come on!

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Well Andy, that's one of the main things I don't agree with with PCA's. You're going to 'pick and choose' the cars that will get consideration or get adjusted. One of the main concerns w/ any kind of adjustment process, was that it would potentially lead to favoritism, etc. I think, and this is just my opinion, that by NOT going through ALL of the cars, and seeing what the weight would be, based on the new system, is actually creating a system that is potentially worse than what we have today.

You're creating a mechanism that will better facilitate favoritism, and the 'no guarantee' clause gets trotted out as an easy way to justify why Car X doesn't get consideration/adjustment. You can say this is 'black helicopters' all you want, but w/o better internal consistency, that's the way I see it.

Bill,

In an effort to TRY and settle this - for the other Bill's sake - here are my final thoughts:

You are complaining that cars with equal hp in IT trim (510 and VW) and potentially equal 'adders' or 'subtractors' aren't at the same weight. I don't know why, somebody else did that a long time ago. Let it die.

As for PCA's and your perceptions (Rules Planet 6!), I can understand your point - but only from a glass is half empty perspective. I think this ITAC has listened to IT racers, and turned the ship in a better direction. If you don't trust that we will do what we think is best for the category, fine. This job is a thankless and poor paying gig. Why would anyone do it except to try and make it a better place to race?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited August 16, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
Can you guys just get your own forum and leave Rules and Regs for the rest of us to actually talk about the Rules and Regs? Every single topic in this area has seemed to degrade into an arguement between you two and, quite frankly, I'm tired of trying to muddle through it all to see if there is actually anything of interest there.

Hey, sorry guy... Just trying to answer the questions asked of me... We can either communicate, or not communicate... Which would you prefer??



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[planet6racing]

Darin:

Don't take offense by what I said! I'm happy you guys are communicating, and I really like it. But, the 450 page long discussion of one person nitpicking the other person's statements and only 2-3 people participating in the discussion just annoy the crap out of me.

I'll happily just go about reading the board and skipping the rules and regs section. It's just frustrating to think that there could be someone with a question that wants to post here but is afraid that it will get turned into a dissertation on what the meaning of the word "is" is...

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
But, the 450 page long discussion of one person nitpicking the other person's statements and only 2-3 people participating in the discussion just annoy the crap out of me.

I'll happily just go about reading the board and skipping the rules and regs section. It's just frustrating to think that there could be someone with a question that wants to post here but is afraid that it will get turned into a dissertation on what the meaning of the word "is" is...

I'm with you, Bill... I've been doing my best lately to try to keep from getting sucked into that vortex of message-board death... Sometimes, the pull is just too strong.



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Bill Miller]

You are complaining that cars with equal hp in IT trim (510 and VW) and potentially equal 'adders' or 'subtractors' aren't at the same weight. I don't know why, somebody else did that a long time ago. Let it die.

No Andy, what I'm 'complaining' about, is that you've got one car (GTI), that has been deemed 'too fast' for ITC, yet you've got another car (510), w/ a damn near equivalent performance potential, and less weight, running in ITC. Couple that w/ the recent classification of the NB in ITC, and you tell me if things seem fair and equitable.

I'll take a 'half full' perspective when these kinds of inequities start going away.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[grjones1]

I think it would be in the best interest of IT that to maintain strict objectivity and preclusion of any possible conflicts of interest, the ITAC and even the CRB should be made up of members currently uninvolved in racing in the IT category. This is not to say that members could not have past experience in the category (and probably should have) but their current involvement raises the possibility of slanted decisionmaking which could be partially remedied by this practice.
And in no way does this proposition intend to reflect on the character of present membership. Does anyone agree?

G. Robert Jones

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 23, 2004).]

[apr67]

Nope. I disagree.

I think members of the ITAC should inform their co-members of what horses they have in the race. And I belive they currently do this.

But I do not want my Ad-hock committee run by a whole bunch of 'non-racers'. I think guys with a dog in the hunt are better.

Personally I think this is part of the problem with some stewards. They don't remember what racing was, if they ever raced. Nor do they understand what real F&C'ers do. So they make decisions that are very suspect.

Alan Russell

[OTLimit]

I have always wondered what kind of person volunteers for a non-paying position in a mostly VOLUNTEER organization knowing that (s)he has to give up what he loves to do the job.

What kind of volunteers do you think you would get?

Or would you get the kind of people who think they know what they are talking about, and like to let their opinions be known on every possible occasion, even if their opinion has no basis in fact?

Whatever.

I think that some of the people who are the most critical of volunteers are the least likely to have a real clue as to how many hours these VOLUNTEERS spend every day and month working for the club.

My opinion only. Please don't take it out on my other half who will give up most of his evening for a conference call tonight.

------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

[grjones1]

Originally posted by OTLimit:
I have always wondered what kind of person volunteers for a non-paying position in a mostly VOLUNTEER organization knowing that (s)he has to give up what he loves to do the job.

What kind of volunteers do you think you would get?

Or would you get the kind of people who think they know what they are talking about, and like to let their opinions be known on every possible occasion, even if their opinion has no basis in fact?

Whatever.

I think that some of the people who are the most critical of volunteers are the least likely to have a real clue as to how many hours these VOLUNTEERS spend every day and month working for the club.

My opinion only. Please don't take it out on my other half who will give up most of his evening for a conference call tonight.

Lesley,
Just in case some of your remarks are pointed at me, I've already stated that because I am not qualified (I have no formal automotive engineering background) I would never consider even the possibility of membership.
That said, what keeps us from seeking out those people who have participated and for whatever reasons are no longer actively competing. There are plenty of "retired" racers who are directly experienced with our venue and hopefully with real engineering backgrounds, and whose very "retired" status allows the time it takes to participate in making critical decisions. And to allow me to step out of further comment to keep this thing open, let me throw in, can you suggest a way to have the board memberships more representative of IT attitudes across the different regions.
GRJ