ITAC News.

[tom91ita]

.....A lot of the letters coming in requesting adjustments to existing listings are of one of the following forms (all of which were present on this month's agenda):
- "My car can't compete at its current weight, please reduce the weight"
- "The weight my car was assigned doesn't look consistent with the weights that other cars were assigned." These don't typically outright SAY "I can't keep up at the current weight and I need help, and this is a way to justify a weight break" but I think that's behind at least a few of them.
- "My car was assigned a weight based on the most recent process, but there's no way I can make that much power."

In other words, there are definitely people out there who think we should be looking at racing results and adjusting weights based on that. There are others who think things just need to be consistent as long as some elements of the cars in question are similar. And there are some that have might have never gotten their car on the track, and are just challenging the assumptions used in the weight assignment process. It's pretty much all over the map.

I'd remind you all to look at the current rules. There is only one justification in the rulebook right now to change the weight of or reclass a car: "racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class". Changes are only permitted within the first five years of a classification, and then after that only "on rare occasion and after careful review of the actual racing performance of a particular vehicle."

.......................

.........Right now, as JJJ points out, there's huge opportunity to play favorites, picking and choosing based on flexible personal definitions of that word. Mr. Keane will defend the process-derived weight of one car as being "without error" but will argue against applying that same process to a different make/model because, well, it would be "wrong." .......

i highlighted the sections which i think are related to my concerns:

i think my 1st gen crx si was not given an achievable factor based on others that have much more experience with the car/ motor. plenty of folks have told me publicly and privately numbers of 31% or 30-33% and even 35% for an all out build. no one will commit to over 35% and certainly not over 40%.

i can't use on track performance at Road Atlanta since the ITC crx's have passed me. obviously i am not preparing/driving the car to its potential. although i have had one for 25 years, i have not developed it for 25 years. more like for one year 25 times.

the car is near its 5 year reclassification from ita to itb and i wanted it looked at again before that limit expires.

and yes, there would seem to be a case where the 12Valve Accords and Preludes are treated much differently from the 12V crx si's.

[JoshS]

the car is near its 5 year reclassification from ita to itb and i wanted it looked at again before that limit expires.

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.

[jjjanos]

Jeff, Josh is trying to do what ever he can to make inroads in getting things consistent. I think the BMW 320 issue was that the same basic car, the 2002, has the same engine and suspension, essentially, and to the Process, they are the same car. So, both got examined, and one was considered to be right on the Process weight, so the other was adjusted to match.

But it isn't making things more consistent. It is doing exactly the opposite. It moves us from a situation where cars have been classified under 3(?) different systems but at least every car classified under a regime was done so consistently to a world where cars are classified under the same number of systems plus those who have close dopple gangers.

Can the CRB/ITAC provide evidence that the original weights weren't set using different HP factors for some reason? That's not an error. Can the ITAC/CRB provide evidence that aero qualities weren't used either explicitly or implicitly when both cars were classified - if not, there is no error, just different regimes. Can the ITAC/CRB demonstrate that the differences in compression and brake sizes weren't originally considered and the lack of a written, consistent classification process aren't to blame? If not, there is no error, just difference in the gut-feeling factor used.

That is the purist way of looking at it, and I actually agree if we're going to be precise, believe it or not. Except ... there is a recourse that is okay with all parties involved, which is the handling of these things as errors.

Well I'm darn well not OK with it. My car and others are carrying too much weight too and we are getting punished because the CRB and ITAC are misusing the errors clause.

Maybe less pure but I think you might be the only one who has a problem with at least making some changes under the current ruleset. At least, you are the only one who I have actually heard voice a concern. I'm sure if the ITAC proposes a rule change then during the member input phase we'll hear from more people who would like to see no changes at all.

I have no problem with correcting errors under the current ruleset. The MR2 is an error - the math guy punched in the wrong number and that can be demonstrated. The BMW, however, has no evidence that the weight as set by the ITAC wasn't exactly what was intended under the then current loosey-goosey classification process.

[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.

[Charlie Broring]

Well I'm darn well not OK with it. My car and others are carrying too much weight too and we are getting punished because the CRB and ITAC are misusing the errors clause.

Jeff, you have one of the 3 or 4 most capable ITB cars. If the Process justifies a weight reduction for you car I would conclude the Process is screwed up.

Justified or not, yours is another example of growing discontent and turmoil in ITB that is doing the class participation no good.

In my opinion the ITAC would do well using a bigger dose on on track performance evaluation. If nothing more it would show where the the classification Process is working and where it needs adjustment. The ITAC is dead on track developing the classification process formula. However the quest for "Open and transparent" and avoiding the occasional competition adjustment are getting in the way of the ultimate goal of fair and equal competition.

Also, the CRB needs to realize that IT has evolved quite a bit form the early days and the "No guarantee of competitiveness" no longer serves the class.

[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"

[Andy Bettencourt]

In my opinion the ITAC would do well using a bigger dose on on track performance evaluation. If nothing more it would show where the the classification Process is working and where it needs adjustment.

Please outline for us how you would evaluate on-track performance and how you would validate your findings.

Really.

[tom91ita]

Please outline for us how you would evaluate on-track performance and how you would validate your findings.

Really.

i agree that there is no good practical way to do this consistently but it is in the rules:

the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated.

if we can't do it, why is it in the rules?

[JeffYoung]

It is unfortunately a "know it when we see it" proposition. In rare cases, where cars are so visibly overdogs (the ITS E36 and the ITA CRX are the only two examples I recall) that we take a harder look at the power numbers.

But we don't adjust based solely on visible on track performance. We use it as a trigger to find out if there is something wrong in the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i agree that there is no good practical way to do this consistently but it is in the rules:



if we can't do it, why is it in the rules?

It can be done. Just depends on your definition of evaluation. Again, the practical application of the rule is to 'pay attention' for class overdogs. Cars that are having an adverse effect on 'class equity'.

[EV]

No, they don't. The base classing and weights are a mystery, known only to the PT committee (which to my last knowledge was 1 guy, but that was a couple years ago, don't know if anything has changed.)

Base class assignment methodology isn't published, but weight is OEM listed weight (at least from what I can tell).

From what I read base class is based on OEM engine HP, brakes (size, type, w/wo ABS), FWD/RWD, you know all the things you would expect. If it turns out a car is a class killer, they will add points for specific cars that are tweeners... The power to weight cap also keeps things very even. Helps prevent people with large wallets from creating killer engines since you can get to the p/wt caps with bolt ones, cams and ECU mods. My junk yard motor can make IT power with a $500 set of cams, instead of $5000 pro engine rebuild which only lasts 2 seasons.

I am seriously considering which sand box I am going to play in...

[gran racing]

In my opinion the ITAC would do well using a bigger dose on on track performance evaluation.

Charlie, becareful of what you wish for. I have no idea how well built your car is, so this isn't said in any disrespect.

Take your car, have a TOP notch build done, pour $30,000 into with boat loads of development, maybe some factory support and engineering help, numerous test days, then have an absolute fantastic driver behind the wheel. YOUR car would get weight quite quickly. In fact, almost all of ours would in that scenario.

There are also other cars where people have gone beyond the rules such as putting in cams. There's quite a bit which can be done with some of the BMW 2002s related to cams, and getting to them for a protest isn't simple. That's just one example since I know the subject has come up in the past, but can easily be applied to any car. Now using on track performance, the legal cars are getting a penalty. Then there are days where everything just falls into place such as temps, cars to bump draft or even just draft with, and so forth.

A more personal example for you and know we've discussed this in the past (at least most of it). Summit point last year. Any idea how many new tires I was using? Not talking about 3 or 4 cycles old, but freshly mounted at the track. After an amazing battle with Martin, he came up to me after and said this next race is yours and bumped me on shoulder. (I did tell him the he better be racing me!) We worked together during that race and the times showed it. Having swapped the tires for old ones, and/or not having him to work with ontrack performance would have been different. Oh, then after the race our cars were weighed. No one torn engines down to look at legality.

In some categories on track performance can be more useful when there's a significant number (1.8 vs 1.6 SMs come to mind). We don't have that in IT. Prep and driver levels also vary greatly.

Use it as a trigger to look closer and that's it.

ps - while my Prelude was to stand losing weight when reviewed, I'm not entirely sure it would make it faster in a sprint race as the weight would have come off the rear of the car. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to have the option though.

[jjjanos]

Jeff, you have one of the 3 or 4 most capable ITB cars. If the Process justifies a weight reduction for you car I would conclude the Process is screwed up.

Justified or not, yours is another example of growing discontent and turmoil in ITB that is doing the class participation no good.

Charlie, I would say that the CRX, the 142 and the 2002 -- when prepared to the same preperation level -- are about equivalent and I can say that, based on the process, the weights of the CRX and the 142 are too heavy. Can't say for certain for the 2002 since the innerweb gives me wild stock HP numbers.

CRX Official weight: 2130
CRX: 91 * 1.25 * 17 = 1934
CRX: 91 * 1.35 * 17 = 2088

Let's assume that the handling characteristics of a solid rear axle car are so superior as to offset the handicap of being FWD. The CRX still has drum rears and, relatively speaking, not enough torque to pull a string through whip cream.

That leaves the car somewhere between 50 and 200 pounds too heavy.

V142 Official weight:2640
V142: 118 * 1.2 *17 = 2407, call it 2405

I wouldn't call a 142 a sleek, road hugging sex pot, but it does have enough torque to drill through a diamond, so we'll say that the torque advantage cancels out the M1 Abram factor.

That leaves the car somewhere like 230+ pounds too heavy.

Advantage, CRX right now and I'd be perfectly happy if they applied a mohel rule and lopped off the top 50 pounds from your car and left mine where it is at....

BUT

VW Golf 2.0 Official Weight: 2350
VW G2: 115 * 1.3 * 17 = 2542

Now, we've both seen one raced and I think we would agree that, while the car is FWD, the brake system so large that it has its own zip code and the torque that allowed it to keep up with a certain cam-advantaged car cancels out the FWD subtraction.

So, that puts the car about 190 lbs too light - by the math the CRB says is used.

We've seen what that car, which has an ARRC-stamp of legality, can do with its current driving style and we've both heard what other drivers were capable of doing in the car when taking it easy on a test day. You saw what the G2 did to a brand-new Troxell-built CRX engine driven by someone who could run at nine-tenths, in the rain while wearing a blindfold at Summit

.. so, from where I sit...

your car, my car and the Bavarian mob are all way too heavy and, unless and until weight gets thrown on the Golf, we all might as well go run STU.

Also, the CRB needs to realize that IT has evolved quite a bit form the early days and the "No guarantee of competitiveness" no longer serves the class.

Ding.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why are you using 1.2 for the Volvo and 1.3 for the Golf?