ITAC News.

[tom91ita]

I have some bad news for you. The reclass was effective 1/1/05, I searched all of the old Fastracks to find it the other day. In other words, 2009 was its 5th year of competition in ITB. And I misspoke, the adjustments cannot be made after the end of the 4th year according to the rules.

i appreciate your comments regarding the updates and nothing that follows is directed to you personally but i am a bit frustrated. this is very interesting and very disappointing. here is the note i sent to [email protected] November 28, 2008.

i have been submitting essentially variants of this with NO response and now i may be past the 4 year deadline. i would hope that submissions inside the 4th year and still not resolved (at least in mind, no response means still under consideration) could be considered.

and please note that i think the formula i presented below appears to be in error as the 50# i subtracted for "poor" suspension should be a 50# adder for DWB suspension. my car's weight compared to other 12V ITB hondas would be relative but it does slightly skew the backcalculated power factor i arrived at.

Dear CRB,

I believe that the basic formula as applied to Improved Touring needs to be revisited. It is my understanding that if a car was within 100 pounds of its target weight, no adjustments were made. I believe this is in error. These process weights should not be to the nearest 100#’s, they should be to the nearest 5 or 10#’s or something that is limited by the accuracy of the scales (e.g., + / - 0.5%).

I must also share that I think my car (1986 Honda CRX Si at 2130 #’s in IT was negatively impacted. I am unable to use any reasonable factor of the formula to arrive at my car’s existing weight.

It is my understanding that the Process for Targeted Weight as applied to ITB is as follows:

• Stock Horsepower x Typical HP gain in IT trim x Weight to Power factor
  
  • ITB Weight to Power is 17 pounds per HP
  • Typical Gain in IT Trim is 25% so 1.25 factor
• Weight Adjustments
  
  • Subtract 50 pounds if front wheel drive
  • Subtract 50 pounds if not strut suspension and independent rear suspension

Applying the above methods to my car results in the following:

91 x 1.25 x 17 = 1934 #’s

· - 50 #’s for FWD
· - 50 #’s for solid rear beam axle

This should result in a weight of 1834 #’s. Please compare this to the weight in the GCR of 2130 #’s. My car is nearly 300#’s over per the base process. By brief background, my car was classed at 1980 when in ITA. It was then given a 150 adder when dropped to ITB.


There are some that maintain that my car should have a HP gain % of 35% instead of the general 25%. If this is the case, my car would have a process weight of 1988 #’s.

It appears that my car is using the same factors and methods applied to its more successful younger brother, the 1988 CRX Si in ITA. The ’88 Si with its 16 Valve engine and OBD0 ignition has more to gain with a good valve job and ECU modifications. My car has the 12 valve head and a vacuum advance distributor.

I back-calculated the % gain that my engine would require to result in 2130 #’s and it is 44%. I do not believe that is achievable.

Thanks in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Tom

[Knestis]

I have cc's of Tom's request in my files dated 23 November 2008, and 09 October 2009 - same request.

He got swept up in the ill-fated "ITB Do-Over Pointess Effort" (DOPE) initiated with Bob Dowie last spring. As it was envisioned, since B represented our problem child collection (lots of years, lots of different technologies, lots of differences) the thought as I understood it was to use that as a testbed of sorts for an initiative to put all cars on a level playing field: To run them all through the same process.

The ITAC solicited data from members that resulted in documentation on some of the oddballs. I put together a new page on the "ITAC spreadsheet" (the committee has the last version I uploaded) with 81(!) make/model examples representing spec lines in the ITCS. We added torque values to the mix in an effort to see how they were distributed and compared to HP. We came up with distinctions between the various technologies and discussed preliminary ways to account for them consistently in the math...

Crucially, we also during this time finalized the PRACTICES that wrapped around the math. This is a point that the CRB critics UTTERLY FAILED TO COMPREHEND. There WAS a formula behind any proposed weight but there was, more importantly, a documented, transparent, prescribed, and repeatable way to run the Process itself, that could be counted on to minimize to the greatest extent the POOMA syndrome that has always been the biggest issue here.

On one call - Andy will remember this - we were asked to share the ITB list with the CRB. Bob D. explicitly asked whether the weights on that spreadsheet would be our recommendations. I jumped all over him to explain that NO - those were the preliminary values all run on a 1.25 power multiplier, and that unless/until we did due diligence and ran each make/model through the PRACTICES around the PROCESS, they were most assuredly NOT.

As we left that call, with him having that worksheet, I had a feeling we were dorked. It turned out that the freeze out - the CRB sitting on weight change recommendations made by the ITAC - started very shortly thereafter. I'm making an inference here but I am *very* confident that CRB members who were up to that point not involved (a la Drago, who GOT involved pretty quickly there) looked at that list, saw the number of cars with different weights and the magnitude of some of the differences (I'd included the then-current ITCS spec and delta between the old and "new" weights, to make it easy for them), and ABSENT ANY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE WERE REALLY DOING, crapped their panties.

I'm very confident (but again, inferring from evidence) that this position got support from some key Keane/Albin concern examples pointed out to them (a la the Audi, which was on there at 400 pounds less than its ITCS spec).

That's a long history lesson (with editorial content) to help explain why Tom's getting screwed if the argument is that his time window closed.

Perhaps most telling: Note that his 2009 submission came after (a) my resignation, and (b) the CRB edict that changes wouldn't be done. And BEFORE the CRB liaison's con call conversation with Jake that they should get back to business...

(A PS here - I mentioned to Josh in an email last night that he needs to be cognizant of the fact that, in the spirit of openness, my policy is now officially that anything anyone tells me is public. I'm not a committee member so am not privileged in any way.)

...so given retroactive application of that rule, here's the response Tom got from Jim Drago (EDIT - in mid-November 2009) after an ITAC member pointed out that, under the November mandate, it wasn't likely his request was going to gain traction:

Tom
No problem, I think you might not find the ITAC all that anxious to do much changing as they are still upset with the CRB etc. If you don't get a satifactory reply, let me know.
Jim

Welcome to really awesome evidence of the ongoing CRB problem that led to the DOPE, freeze out, and Great Exodus. Tell the ITAC one thing, and tell the members another - depending on the agenda du jour and who you're talking to. Act unilaterally rather than giving recommendations a comprehensive look and fair up or down vote. Hide changes to ad hoc committee recommendations from the membership. Discourage public conversation but use back-channel email liberally, to further internal - sometimes individual - agendas. Channel information (so power) through just a couple of individuals. Allow committee members with vested interests in the CRB decisions to not only vote, but to be the source of "expert information" to that committee.

Seriously, people. This isn't Tammany Hall.

Josh - If the ITAC doesn't legitimately run that ITB CRX through the process and make a recommendation to the CRB, the group will have failed a crucial test of your legitimacy. If the CRB doesn't like the recommendation and changes it, that's both within their purview and evidence to the members of the practices being applied by that body. Regardless...

Just. Get. It. Fixed.

K

EDIT: Found another email. After I called him on the above, Mr. Drago responded with the following (21 November 2009):

When I had communicated your request to an ITAC member, they didnt realize your car being reclassed into B in 2006, thus adjustments were allowed if ITAC decided the change was needed. We had a misunderstanding and I took a misundertanding/miscommunication with one of the ITAC members as a possible reluctance to to look at your issue. That was not that case, my goal was only to make sure you received an answer to your request and were satisfied with the response you received.

There's your permission, Josh.

[gran racing]

Josh - If the ITAC doesn't legitimately run that ITB CRX through the process and make a recommendation to the CRB, the group will have failed a crucial test of your legitimacy. If the CRB doesn't like the recommendation and changes it, that's both within their purview and evidence to the members of the practices being applied by that body. Regardless...

Just. Get. It. Fixed.

I was following you up till this Kirk. In fact, it would be even more annoying to see some cars receive special re-consideration. Treat cars and their drivers fairly. All. Not just ones classed within the past 5 years. If there are Volvos or whatever other car out there that were classed many years ago and membership still wants to race them, treat them fairly.

The ITAC and CRB need to dig themselves out of a big hole. Membership does not trust them and why should they? With the CRB, it isn't just about IT. Similar issues are happening in a much broader scope. Much to my shock <insert sarcasm>, it is happening with other advisory committees outside of IT. Yet somehow we keep riding on a "things are pretty good".

Josh, thank you for continuing to post here and working to move forward with things. You're in a tough position but continuing to communicate does help.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The biggest goal of the current ITAC should be the change of the ITCS language that the CRB is using to shackle class parity.

Get that done and the category will be on the fast-track to an easy future.

[tom91ita]

would it possible for the ITAC to post the results it had from the evaluations and assessments, BOLD emphasis mine (per the 2009 GCR) for various ITB cars?

At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a "performance compensation adjustment" shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What that paragraph means Tom is that the ITAC / CRB will keep their ear to the ground for potential overdogs and correct them if they see them (BMW 325). Nothing more, nothing less.

[JeffYoung]

Tom is correct that the language is mandatory (shall) and we didn't do it. Again, another example of where that clause does not line up with the reality of how we were doing things.

That clause is a cluster. As Andy said, it needs to be fixed before any real progress can be made.

[tom91ita]

What that paragraph means Tom is that the ITAC / CRB will keep their ear to the ground for potential overdogs and correct them if they see them (BMW 325). Nothing more, nothing less.

Andy, that is fine.

the point i was trying to make is that if i am excluded by the rules for the four years clause, then the rules that state "shall be evaluated" should be more than "group seems okay"