ITAC News.

[JeffYoung]

One quick point on the 25%. No, we are not using it every case.

But we are requiring a higher standard than just a few calls or some guesswork to move off of that number.

The Z32 is a classic example of this (and it has now been processed using the Ops Manual procedure).

This car should have been a bread and butter car in the class but exactly one guy -- a dedicated Nissan guy -- has built one and all the Nissan oriented speedshops have stayed away from it. Why? Because it got tagged with a lot of weight based on a guess from an old dyno sheet.

The system can't work that way either.

The problem with why the numbers in the spreadsheet and the ITCS do not line up with what the Ops Manual says they should be relates primarily to (a) the percentage deduct for FWD; (b) the adjustment of other adders; (c) while you say a lot of thought went into the engine gain percentages, and I am sure they did, it certainly does look willy nilly and there is zero documentation to back it up (what research was done to tag the Mitsu/Dodge V6 with more than 25%??) and (d) just plain math errors.

ITR needs a clean up. Bad. The "offs" aren't huge but they are embarassing.

ON edit: That last statement is VERY dangerous. The manual should be set in stone. There are means for correcting erros within the existing procedures. But if the procedures can be changed willy nilly - that is EXACTLY what Kirk has warned about and he is right. The Process needs to stay consistent.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This car should have been a bread and butter car in the class but exactly one guy -- a dedicated Nissan guy -- has built one and all the Nissan oriented speedshops have stayed away from it. Why? Because it got tagged with a lot of weight based on a guess from an old dyno sheet.

Try not to re-write history. There is a TON of knowledge on that motor in the GT community. Stock sheets, bolt on sheets and full-prep sheets. Just like when we asked AS V8 builders for their input on the CamaroBirds when the CRB was freaked out, that was what was done there. The info was blended together. But whatever.

The problem with why the numbers in the spreadsheet and the ITCS do not line up with what the Ops Manual says they should be relates primarily to (a) the percentage deduct for FWD; (b) the adjustment of other adders; (c) while you say a lot of thought went into the engine gain percentages, and I am sure they did, it certainly does look willy nilly and there is zero documentation to back it up (what research was done to tag the Mitsu/Dodge V6 with more than 25%??) and (d) just plain math errors.

ITR needs a clean up. Bad. The "offs" aren't huge but they are embarrassing.

A clean up is always good but lets not tag 'embarrassing' to a dynamic older way of doing things. When some ITAC members left and came on, a great initiative was undertaken to document the process, as you know. This led to months of running through scenarios and writing things down. It was great.

And maybe the new way is to hold the 25% more to the fire and we will have to accept it. Bottom line, we did the same thing vs the regime that preceded us...and they didn't like it either.

[Andy Bettencourt]

ON edit: That last statement is VERY dangerous. The manual should be set in stone. There are means for correcting erros within the existing procedures. But if the procedures can be changed willy nilly - that is EXACTLY what Kirk has warned about and he is right. The Process needs to stay consistent.

PLEASE don't be the guy waving the 'because that's how it's always been done' flag. If the ITAC feels there needs to be a 100lb delta on DW's, then it's your job to make it happen. Of course not willy-nilly. But if you believe the process needs to evolve. Evolve it.

And IIRC, Kirk never said the Process needs to stay consistent, he said that the Process needs to be documented and followed in a consistent fashion to remain consistent. TOTALLY different. It's like ISO standards. You can have imperfect procedures that are very dynamic to continue your process improvement, but you just have to have each iteration written down and followed during it's 'life'.

[JeffYoung]

I'm not. But I'm the guy saying the Process ahs to stop evolving and settle -- for a good while. The constantly evolving process, while necessary, is also the genesis of a lot of the problems we have right now.

We have to let it settle. I feel a lot of frustration from drivers over the Process constantly "moving."

PLEASE don't be the guy waving the 'because that's how it's always been done' flag. If the ITAC feels there needs to be a 100lb delta on DW's, then it's your job to make it happen. Of course not willy-nilly. But if you believe the process needs to evolve. Evolve it.

[CRallo]

struts are struts, don't split hairs please.

[seckerich]

I'm not. But I'm the guy saying the Process ahs to stop evolving and settle -- for a good while. The constantly evolving process, while necessary, is also the genesis of a lot of the problems we have right now.

We have to let it settle. I feel a lot of frustration from drivers over the Process constantly "moving."

Drivers are getting very tired of every new crew on the ITAC thinking they have a better way and need to keep screwing with classes. Fix the errors and stop. Add any more weight to ITR cars and you will see some builds stop--today. A duck shoot at a county fair has less moving targets.

[Andy Bettencourt]

[/B]



Drivers are getting very tired of every new crew on the ITAC thinking they have a better way and need to keep screwing with classes. Fix the errors and stop. Add any more weight to ITR cars and you will see some builds stop--today. A duck shoot at a county fair has less moving targets.

And I can buy this for sure. But what they have uncovered is that they blindly followed the Ops manual (which was in error) and mis-classed a car given how ITR was created and how the rest of the class is weighted. So they have 2 choices. 'Fix' the manual (add weight to everything in ITR with DW's) or correct the pending Vette listing -50.

Seems simple if the goal is for some short term stability.

[seckerich]

Give the Vette a mullet and 100 pounds and call it a day.

[Chip42]

New cars:
we recently classed the 1st gen Acura TSX. 2760 by process, and we are worried that this might be unachievably LIGHT. by "your" process it would have been 2785 by virtue of a 100# vs 6% FWD deduct, even with no +50lbs for suspension. so we are keeping some things lighter

also clased the '84 'Vette, an older mustang ('86 GT IIRC), another comarobird. As the requests come in, more will be classed. I tend to believe that HEAVY and NOT ADVANCED suspension are the way of the newer additions because hp numbers have exploded and cars have gotten fat, but they have also been stamped out and spoprtiness is often not part of the equation. the DW adder should stay.

in fact, following the ops manual process perfectly, the hondas (including the S2000s)lose on average ~35#. the stealth/300GT loses 235#. Note that the ops manual also calls out weight adders for over/under displacment and tq. and we have NOT been follwoing the displacement math - it would raise the wait of the 'vette to 3165 if we did. again, I'm cool with dropping this from the ops manual with the FWD strut deduct if the rest of the committee is, but it's going to be hard to convince me to get rid of the DW adder.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Give the Vette a mullet and 100 pounds and call it a day.

Got my Joe Dirt wig...and she gets 150lbs just for extra torque!