ITAC News.

[StephenB]

The Audi

What about using the B cars which people have previously requested to be reviewed, the list the ITAC already worked on in addition to those?

How would anyone know if something was still in review or if it was forgotten about?

Stephen


PS: I think that one spec line version of the Audi has gone through the process already.

[gran racing]

Which is exactly why a while back I suggested stating which cars were on the review list. The answer was if it was on the original, it was being looked at. Based on this list that is not the case.

[Bill Miller]

Which is exactly why a while back I suggested stating which cars were on the review list. The answer was if it was on the original, it was being looked at. Based on this list that is not the case.

Wouldn't it be a better idea just to list the date the weight was established in the comments section on the spec line?

[chuck baader]

Excellent idea, Bill. I second that. Chuck

[lateapex911]

Wouldn't it be a better idea just to list the date the weight was established in the comments section on the spec line?

Excellent idea, Bill. I second that. Chuck

Yea, "Born on dating"...no offense to Bill, but this idea has been suggested a ZILLION times. Who knows, maybe it was Bill who originally suggested it, almost a decade ago. I know I've beat that dead horse when I was on the ITAC a half dozen times, and I know certain people were sick of my squeakywheel. And along with that, I think we should list the Process math. If not in the GCR, then it CERTAINLY should all be maintained online so any member can see it.

[Chip42]

For some reason I can't log in to this site form work any longer. I can view it, just can't participate. suggestions on a fix are welcome (please PM or email).

I haven't been on the ITAC long, and as such don't have a full handle on what has been done recently or in the past which wasn't documented in threads like this on this site.

I can say that the list Jeff posted is obviously not complete. any more input via post here or email to an ITAC member is appreciated. the issue of a full ITB evaluation has been discussed but we haven't made major steps on it in my short time on the committee. I expect that to change, and will personally take on as much that project as is necessary to see it completed.

Re: a lot of pending items. there's a list that all unresolved letters are on. motor mounts, reprocess requests, etc.. are all on their either pending action or incomplete. nothing older than August is untouched, I promise. I'm not really sure how the crb/itac relationship works quite yet but they did send a few things back to us. I suspect we will get the info on why at our next call, which was moved out a week due to a lot of member schedule conflicts. I guess I'm saying be patient, you have a good group of guys who are working on it.

[JeffYoung]

Just to be clear (and not knocking Kirk, Jake or Dave at all), here is where I personally think we are:

1. This is not a complete do-over of ITB. Rather, we are ensuring that older cars that are running that have not been processed will be processed.

2. Dave G., the Accord has been discussed, and a recommendation made.

3. Jake, yes, it is possible the 17:1 power/weight changes in ITB, but I think it unlikely. We had a former member who raised some difficult, and good, questions about it and the fact that it is based on dyno sheets from a "bogey" car (the Volvo 142) that may not have been 100% legal.

The good news is that roughly speaking, using "real" power figures for most cars presently running in ITB suggests that they can get to their process weight at 17:1.

I don't personally anticipate the power/weight changing as a result. But none of the Ops Manual is set in stone like the Constitution or anything. Subsequent ITACs can change it if they wish. I'd like to think they would tread very carefully before doing so, but you never know.

So, with all of those make/model lines added to the list, I'd like to amend my question to, "How are we coming on that complete do-over of ITB?"

K

[gran racing]

What does it really matter if it's 17:1 or 10,000:1 if applied equally, fairly, and the vast majority of cars can reach min weight? I don't get why this is even being considered.

[Knestis]

I'm funny about stuff sometimes but it's annoying in the extreme that a complete reshuffle of B is being considered - primarily to accommodate the Volvos - when it's the shenanigans of past Volvo racers that's put them into their present pickle.

A part of me thinks it's elegant justice if they discover they are stuck with an uphill battle now because of past indiscretions. Drivers of those cars who are still active, who were around back when they were kicking ass and taking names, should be embarrassed and be glad they have the option of moving to ITC where they actually fit.

But remember, this is SCCA and the old saying applies: "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many."

Oh, wait...

K

[Gary L]

I'm funny about stuff sometimes but it's annoying in the extreme that a complete reshuffle of B is being considered - primarily to accommodate the Volvos - when it's the shenanigans of past Volvo racers that's put them into their present pickle.

A part of me thinks it's elegant justice if they discover they are stuck with an uphill battle now because of past indiscretions. Drivers of those cars who are still active, who were around back when they were kicking ass and taking names, should be embarrassed and be glad they have the option of moving to ITC where they actually fit.

But remember, this is SCCA and the old saying applies: "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many."

Oh, wait...

K

As a relatively new Volvo driver, and a really new ITAC member...

For starters, if we were to seriously consider a base power/weight ratio shift in ITB, my vote would be a resounding "no". We have enough issues without completely reinventing the ITB wheel. Further, as I have stated on these pages multiple times, I don't see the 140 series Volvo as being that far out of whack anyway. Yes, there are other Volvo drivers that have called me out on this, and in no uncertain terms. That's too bad... the car is in my opinion, pretty damned close to where it should be (weight wise) in ITB. And it sure as Hell does NOT belong in ITC. I'm carrying ballast now, in the form of extra fuel and a spare tire, not to mention there is still a fair amount of undercoating left on the car, it has a stock radiator, etc. Why would I want to move to (a less-subscribed) ITC, while screwing the car up by adding another 10 or 12% to the as-raced weight? Illogical, Captain.

The 240 series is another story altogether, and the ITAC is working that problem as we speak. Yes - at least some of the 240's clearly belong in "C", IMHO. Maybe the whole damned bunch of them... they have (in some cases, significantly) less horsepower potential than the 140 and they all have significantly heavier curb weights. Unlike my car, many of the 240's (particularly with the 2.1 engine) will absolutely never make ITB weight legally; we're talking about missing the target by hundreds of pounds here, not dozens.

[Bill Miller]

Yea, "Born on dating"...no offense to Bill, but this idea has been suggested a ZILLION times. Who knows, maybe it was Bill who originally suggested it, almost a decade ago. I know I've beat that dead horse when I was on the ITAC a half dozen times, and I know certain people were sick of my squeakywheel. And along with that, I think we should list the Process math. If not in the GCR, then it CERTAINLY should all be maintained online so any member can see it.

Jake,

I have no idea if I originally came up w/ that idea or not. It just seems to make make a lot of sense. Not only do you know when the weight was established, you should be able to go back through the records (FasTrack, etc.) and look at any variances from the process and the supporting evidence. After all, this suff is all being documented now.

I will say this though. I think I was one of the first people that suggested and supported a repeatable, objective process for setting car weights (hence Kirk's coining of the term "Miller ratio"). I also remember that I was told by several people on this board that using a mathematical formula for setting weights would never work.

Where things are at now are almost exactly what I was advocating for 10+ years ago. Have an objective, repeatable formula that was applied to every car in the ITCS, and document why a deviation was made from that formula for a specific vehicle. That has always been the crux of my position.

[Bill Miller]

I'm funny about stuff sometimes but it's annoying in the extreme that a complete reshuffle of B is being considered - primarily to accommodate the Volvos - when it's the shenanigans of past Volvo racers that's put them into their present pickle.

A part of me thinks it's elegant justice if they discover they are stuck with an uphill battle now because of past indiscretions. Drivers of those cars who are still active, who were around back when they were kicking ass and taking names, should be embarrassed and be glad they have the option of moving to ITC where they actually fit.

But remember, this is SCCA and the old saying applies: "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many."

Oh, wait...

K

But remember, this is SCCA and the old saying applies: "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many."
Should I cue the John Lennon music?

Dave Gran,

You get it.

I can see adjusting the ratio for a given class if the one currently being used does not spit out weights that don't need to be diddled for at least 80% of the class. If you're diddling a bunch of cars, it's a safe bet that the ratio for that class may be off. But that was also one of the things about my original (and current) position, you used the data you gathered along the way to refine the model (for all the cars in a given class).

[TimM ITB]

Gents;
Not having written into any SCCA committee previously, I am looking for some direction on this from folks who "attend" this forum.
Recently the Golf III had 45 # of weight added to it. I became aware of this at a recent event at New Hampshire Motor Speedway, and found out that it was in effect immediately. There were several other Golf III's at this event, and after a whole bunch of "normal" discussion (adverse comments all around by the Golf III owners!) the question was raised about how this affected the roll cage dimensions. I did some research, and it appears to me that this new minimum weight requirement has created a serious issue. This is from the current 2011 GCR:

Directly from the GCR page 178

3. Minimum tubing sizes for (all Showroom Stock, Touring and
Improved Touring Category auto-mobiles registered after June
GCR - 179
Appendix I. 2007 Cage Rules
General
1, 1994) for all required roll cage elements (All dimensions in
inches):
Up to 1500 lbs. 1.375 x .095 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
1501-2200 lbs. 1.500 x .095 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
2201-3000 lbs. 1.500 x .120 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
1.625 x .120 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
1.750 x .095 DOM / Seamless / Alloy
My car used to be 2350. Using the forumula in the GCR, you take the minimum weight of the car, subtract 180 pounds, and THAT is what qualifies you for the roll cage tubing requirements. 2350 - 180 = 2170. My car has a professionaly built $2500 1.5" cabe in it! According to the new weights, I need to take out my current cage and replace it? Besides that, and much more importantly than the money - I am going to assume that someone somewhere did some engineering to determine these requirements. I do NOT want to be driving a car that now has what would be considered an "un safe" or "sub standard" roll cage based on its weight!
If someone can guide me to the correct person or email address I plan to urge that the requirement for the additional 45# be rescinded for this safety issue. Not only will this affect many CURRENTLY BUILT cars across the country, but I know of several of these cars that are in “mid-construction” phase, as well.

[Greg Amy]

...this new minimum weight requirement has created a serious issue...

An astute observation, Tim. You are correct: to the letter of the Appendix I rules, your cage with your new ITB weight cannot use 1.50x.095. Am I to infer that you verified your cage is .095 wall and not .120 wall?

But there's a catch...

...I know of several of these cars that are in “mid-construction” phase, as well.

Those cars will have to be built to the latest regs; for a car 1701-2699# that's...1.50x.095. Note that the current rollcage regs state "Cars registered before 1/1/08 may continue to compete with their previous roll cage as specified in Appendix I." (not "must'; my emphasis.)

Bottom line, you're good as long as you're not using ERW tubing and the construction meets the tubing location rules. - GA

[JeffYoung]

Greg, would that be true for cars with a cage registered after the date you cite?

Tim, if not, I agree this is a problem. Perhaps we can add a note t the spec line allowing the lighterweight cage tubing. Send the request to the ITAC and we will deal with it, and sorry about this -- truly an unintended consequence.

[lateapex911]

An astute observation, Tim. You are correct: to the letter of the Appendix I rules, your cage with your new ITB weight cannot use 1.50x.095. Am I to infer that you verified your cage is .095 wall and not .120 wall?

But there's a catch...
Those cars will have to be built to the latest regs; for a car 1701-2699# that's...1.50x.095. Note that the current rollcage regs state "Cars registered before 1/1/08 may continue to compete with their previous roll cage as specified in Appendix I." (not "must'; my emphasis.)

Bottom line, you're good as long as you're not using ERW tubing and the construction meets the tubing location rules. - GA

Ahh, but while he's 'good to go" ('grandfathered", (based on the cage date)he's (sorry Tim), essentially playing the "safety card", in that he wants the weight rescinded, as he hasn't seen documentation that the car, now 45lbs heavier, will be safe with his now undersized cage.

Tim, I'm sure the ITAC/CRB has run this up the risk management flagpole.* Well, I hope they have. Because, by allowing a grandfathered car to be overweight vis a vis the cage requirements, they do seem to be opening a liability window.

In your case, Tim, I think you have a decision: 1- take your chances, and leave the existing cage in. (99% of other racers do this in this situation. )
2- redo your cage.


I have never heard of any issues that have resulted in a car being 45lbs over and injuries resulting form a now substandard cage.


*When discussing the 1st gen RX-7, it was considered for a move to ITB, and if the Process was used as is, the car would have gained a considerable amount of weight...hundreds of pounds. The issue was that there were, by an informal poll, hundreds of cars built with the lighter tubing that would need to be recaged, because the CRB would not, at the time, allow a car that was hundreds over the limit to be grandfathered. I know this aspect was discussed at that time (it's a pretty obvious thing to check when changing weights), so I ASSUME it was evident this time as well, and a judgement was made that the 45 wasn't a deal killer.

[itracer]

Not only will this affect many CURRENTLY BUILT cars across the country, but I know of several of these cars that are in “mid-construction” phase, as well.

My car falls into this category and the cage is complete and paid for. If I have to remove it, I am done with racing. I will buy a boat like my brother! This cage design has (unfortunately) been tested by Tom K. and Tim M. and it has withheld some serious forces.

I can race in Prod with the same cage! Why is SS & IT held to higher standings?:
Vehicle Weight Without Driver
Up to 1500 lbs. 1.375 x .095
1500-2500 lbs. 1.50 x .095
Over 2500 lbs. 1.50 x .120

[JoshS]

Guys, please read the rules before posting. Or overreacting.

As Greg said, cars registered before 1/1/08 have a choice of which set of roll cage rules they wish to abide by. The old rules are in appendix I, and the OP is right, under those rules, an increase in weight would mean an increase in minimum tubing size, either diameter or thickness.

But the new rules, in GCR section 9.4, allow 1.5x.095 for all cars up to 2700 lbs (w/driver), but do have some newer rules with regards to construction. Chances are your cars are all fine under the new rules, and certainly the ones under construction will NEED to abide by the new rules (and as such, can use 1.5x.095).

[shwah]

I actually originally thought that this was the reason the Golf III was dropped into B at the old A weight - to avoid landing in a new cage bracket.

[lateapex911]

I'm funny about stuff sometimes but it's annoying in the extreme that a complete reshuffle of B is being considered - primarily to accommodate the Volvos - when it's the shenanigans of past Volvo racers that's put them into their present pickle.

A part of me thinks it's elegant justice if they discover they are stuck with an uphill battle now because of past indiscretions. Drivers of those cars who are still active, who were around back when they were kicking ass and taking names, should be embarrassed and be glad they have the option of moving to ITC where they actually fit.

But remember, this is SCCA and the old saying applies: "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many."

Oh, wait...

K

X a billion. Right on, Kirk.
And, further, see below \/

As a relatively new Volvo driver, and a really new ITAC member...

For starters, if we were to seriously consider a base power/weight ratio shift in ITB, my vote would be a resounding "no". We have enough issues without completely reinventing the ITB wheel. Further, as I have stated on these pages multiple times, I don't see the 140 series Volvo as being that far out of whack anyway. Yes, there are other Volvo drivers that have called me out on this, and in no uncertain terms. That's too bad... the car is in my opinion, pretty damned close to where it should be (weight wise) in ITB. And it sure as Hell does NOT belong in ITC. I'm carrying ballast now, in the form of extra fuel and a spare tire, not to mention there is still a fair amount of undercoating left on the car, it has a stock radiator, etc. Why would I want to move to (a less-subscribed) ITC, while screwing the car up by adding another 10 or 12% to the as-raced weight? Illogical, Captain.

The 240 series is another story altogether, and the ITAC is working that problem as we speak. Yes - at least some of the 240's clearly belong in "C", IMHO. Maybe the whole damned bunch of them... they have (in some cases, significantly) less horsepower potential than the 140 and they all have significantly heavier curb weights. Unlike my car, many of the 240's (particularly with the 2.1 engine) will absolutely never make ITB weight legally; we're talking about missing the target by hundreds of pounds here, not dozens.

I agree. I've heard the same cries of "we can't compete, and frankly after looking at the efforts and prep level of those complaining, I would BET that if those cars were given to top prep shops, and driven by shoes, they'd be pissing off the leaders.....they just don't strike me as also rans.

I think your reasoning is very valid. Glad to hear your thoughts.

What does it really matter if it's 17:1 or 10,000:1 if applied equally, fairly, and the vast majority of cars can reach min weight? I don't get why this is even being considered.

Well, it matters alot, and the ratio was chose in concert with the others, to render the greatest amount of cars possible to be competitive.
Changing it now might mean that many cars will need to add or subtract ballast. Changing the majority of the class, for the 'possible' failings on ONE car strikes me as a folly.

The ITAC, should they pursue this concept, needs to know, for each car affected, whether or not the car is able to meet minimum, and what possible outcasts they will be creating. In other words, if they take the Borgward that is currently racing at a just achievable 2500 pounds, and they adjust the class so that it now needs to be 2350 to meet Process, it might just be impossible, (or very $$$) to make weight. Or, put another way, THAT car has now been rendered uncompetitive.

Since IT didn't come to the party based on bogus hp ratings, it shouldn't suffer.

On the other hand, if the weights of the entire class INCREASE by the same amount (effectively giving the Volvo a 150 weight break), then they have just increased the costs for EVERY ITB competitor. And lap records will need an asterisk, etc. Again, penalizing the whole class for the actions of one.

But I feel the Volvo, when prepped to the top level, and driven by an Eric Curran, CAN be competitive, and isn't that what this is all about anyway?