ITAC News.

[JeffYoung]

Funny, I was just looking too.

$800 though!

One on Ebay now.

[Ron Earp]

Funny, I was just looking too.

$800 though!

I bid $35 on one that is buy it now at $100. Not complete but has the stuff that is important. I think I know a fellow that has one too sitting out back of the garage. Dude that works for R&J, I know I saw one down there at Xmas. Most people don't want them, tis the reason I've got six Ford V6 manifolds around the house, not counting the ones on the cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Doubtful (to me). The committee discussed this on the last call. The rationale for not having it doesn't make sense. Couple that with not wanting to change the Ops Manual except in extraordinary circumstances and my guess is it stays.

Agree or disagree with the rule, we have shown you that it was mistakenly omitted with 3 levels of proof. I think it is your responsibility to correct the Document and then make changes as you see fit later on a categorical level. Not allow the mistake to stay because it satisfies your current position.

No offense here but your stance does not make sense to me. A mistake was made. Correct it. Then it affects one car. If you allow it to remain, it affects way more.

The extraordinary circumstance is that it is WRONG. An error was made in it's omission. If you left out the FWD subtractor by accident, would you be willing to let that sit? Of course not. Come on, fix the mistake.

[JeffYoung]

Andy. Stop. You are not on the ITAC anymore (and I won't be for much longer and then I get to sit on the sidelines, although I am looking forward to that). I understand your position. I disagree with it. As I have said 50 times now the origin of the mistake was in thinking that DW cars predominated in ITR. We have proven that your assumption on that point was completely incorrect. Thus the DW adder actually makes sense.

In other words, the mistake actually produced a more consistent, supportable result than what the "mistake" replaced.

My responsibility is to do what I think is best for IT as a whole, based on my own opinions and member input. Right now, I've got exactly ONE persion -- YOU -- making a stink about this and no one else.

You really need to relax on this one my friend.

Agree or disagree with the rule, we have shown you that it was mistakenly omitted with 3 levels of proof. I think it is your responsibility to correct the Document and then make changes as you see fit later on a categorical level. Not allow the mistake to stay because it satisfies your current position.

No offense here but your stance does not make sense to me. A mistake was made. Correct it. Then it affects one car. If you allow it to remain, it affects way more.

The extraordinary circumstance is that it is WRONG. An error was made in it's omission. If you left out the FWD subtractor by accident, would you be willing to let that sit? Of course not. Come on, fix the mistake.

[lateapex911]

As I have said 50 times now the origin of the mistake was in thinking that DW cars predominated in ITR. We have proven that your assumption on that point was completely incorrect. .

I must be skimming this thread badly. Can you show me that post Jeff?? Thanks.

[Chip42]

Agree or disagree with the rule, we have shown you that it was mistakenly omitted with 3 levels of proof. I think it is your responsibility to correct the Document and then make changes as you see fit later on a categorical level. Not allow the mistake to stay because it satisfies your current position.

No offense here but your stance does not make sense to me. A mistake was made. Correct it. Then it affects one car. If you allow it to remain, it affects way more.

The extraordinary circumstance is that it is WRONG. An error was made in it's omission. If you left out the FWD subtractor by accident, would you be willing to let that sit? Of course not. Come on, fix the mistake.

1 - NOTHING is getting changed without a complete review of the CLASS. if <2% of the car's weight in an adder that was not applied to its siblings bothers you that much, I'm sorry. I can't imagine how you would have reacted if we chose to class the car at 30%, 115# heavier, which would have been consistant with the way similar cars were run previously (the 2V OHV fords and camarobirds).

2 - the ERROR is a difference between what is written in the ops manual and what was done in the past BEFORE the ops manual was released. we tend to think the manual actually represents a better system. remind me where you said otherwise BEFORE this issue (I'm sure you did though I don't remember it). no one is arguing about the way it was done before, only discussing if that way was, indeed, objectively correct. There's good evidence that it wasn't, and not just with regard to the suspension adders.

we WILL address the situation, we ARE reviewing ALL of the current ITR cars, with a variety of "processes" including the ops manual, the method you reminded us of, and hybrids with various adders turned on and off. we will evaluate each result and DECIDE THEN what the correct course of action is and vote on it. I'm not going to vote to change the corvette before it even hits fastrack to maybe do it again in a couple of months. if it is changed at all, it will happen once.

I'm thinking that this 50# wont upset the corvette all that much in the grand scheme of things.

and while I'm on the point - there is no double whammy here. the 50lbs is just that. no non-DW car got -50 for it UNLESS it was FWD, in which case that is OFFSET by the fact that a -100# deduct was used vs. the poblished -6%, which is more than 100# in all cases I've run so far. it's also a fair deduct in theory, because most FWD strut cars have crap packaging and generally abuses the tires more, particularly at these higher HP and weight classifications. so everyone can just lay off the double whammy argument, it doesn't hold up.

[Andy Bettencourt]

1 - NOTHING is getting changed without a complete review of the CLASS. if <2% of the car's weight in an adder that was not applied to its siblings bothers you that much, I'm sorry. I can't imagine how you would have reacted if we chose to class the car at 30%, 115# heavier, which would have been consistant with the way similar cars were run previously (the 2V OHV fords and camarobirds).

Simple, I would not have recommended to this guy he build a Vette. And I was confident it was going through at 25% based on the new 'standard of evidence' you were using to correct cars like the 300ZX.

and while I'm on the point - there is no double whammy here. the 50lbs is just that. no non-DW car got -50 for it UNLESS it was FWD, in which case that is OFFSET by the fact that a -100# deduct was used vs. the poblished -6%, which is more than 100# in all cases I've run so far. it's also a fair deduct in theory, because most FWD strut cars have crap packaging and generally abuses the tires more, particularly at these higher HP and weight classifications. so everyone can just lay off the double whammy argument, it doesn't hold up.

Of course it does. If you re-run the cars, you will apply the -50 AND the 6% AND the +50. No?

Whatever, I am done. I am just totally pissed off that it is not being recognized that ITR never used DW adders and due to effectively a transcription error, you are classing cars inconsistent to the rest of the class. Everything else is just smoke.

[Chip42]

ever heard of a happy accident? I think that's what we have here.

-50 to FWD only and AFTER the FWD deduct. not apples:apples. btw this effects all of 4 cars in the ITCS, only one of which I'm aware of actually being run in ITR, and it's overweight anyhow (DUC's 2ZZ-GE celica). I hope your corvette can keep up with it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

ever heard of a happy accident? I think that's what we have here.

-50 to FWD only and AFTER the FWD deduct. not apples:apples. btw this effects all of 4 cars in the ITCS, only one of which I'm aware of actually being run in ITR, and it's overweight anyhow (DUC's 2ZZ-GE celica). I hope your corvette can keep up with it.

I again don't care if you add 50 for DW or subtract 50 for struts, but not both.

[JeffYoung]

No, it isn't just smoke. The reason for that no DW adder was used in ITR before is wrong. It makes no sense. Like Chip said, it is a "happy accident" that the Ops Manual got it RIGHT and has a DW adder for ITR.

Whatever, I am done. I am just totally pissed off that it is not being recognized that ITR never used DW adders and due to effectively a transcription error, you are classing cars inconsistent to the rest of the class. Everything else is just smoke.

[Andy Bettencourt]

No, it isn't just smoke. The reason for that no DW adder was used in ITR before is wrong. It makes no sense. Like Chip said, it is a "happy accident" that the Ops Manual got it RIGHT and has a DW adder for ITR.

That's 100% your opinion because you happen to like the way the rule reads. There was never an intent to add for DW's in ITR. Like the logic or not, it doesn't matter. Again, with a strut 'deduct' on the books, it can't be both ways. (well it can, but that was NEVER the intent nor was ever voted on). Eliminate the strut deduct and keep the DW, or eliminate the DW and keep the strut deduct.

[Knestis]

Sorry, Jeff. I agree with Andy - strongly. Or at least as strongly as I can muster an opinion about the issues at this point in my self-imposed laissez faire bubble.

The ITR-specific application of the Process, as established and practiced at the time, was not translated accurately into the ops manual. That's a clerical error that should be fixed.

It's a "happy accident" only insofar as someone wants the result to be a Process-as-applied taht is consistent with something slightly different than it was intended at the time. And to be clear, I don't think that anyone said, "All ITR cars have dual-wishbone suspension." Again, my recollection was that we came to consensus around the first principle that as a group, cars in ITR hard consistently more sophisticated suspension designs than in the lower-end classes - save the stick-axle options, for which a subtractor solution was available.

There are two arguments for not correcting what has clearly been documented as a documentation error - the aforementioned desire to end up with a different outcome (the current ops manual-defined happy accident) or "we don't want the CRB to be pissed off." Please don't (ITAC as a whole) get sucked into playing the games around the second. Oops. We goofed. It's a fix, not a change.

At that point, LEAVE IT ALONE. There's nothing new to be learned on the issues that matter and changing things is going to do more harm than good.

K

[JeffYoung]

Wrong.

The reason offered above on many occasions for "no DW adder" in ITR was most cars had DW. That's false. BMWs, Ponies, some Toyotas, some Nissans, and I am sure some others don't.

Then it morphed to 'advanced suspension design" in ITR, as if we were going to start looking at suspension geometry and camber curves on strut suspensions AND then try to figure out if it could be corrected with the "open strut" rule. Answer: we are not, the advanced suspension design argument is a red herring.

If we are going to have a DW adder it makes no sense to have it in 3 classes and not one.

I have no idea why you are so upset about this, which involves 50 lbs on cars with 200+ whp.

[seckerich]

Most of the cars in ITR are already too heavy because the class was built around the E36 BMW. Now you want to go with another adder and further push the weight envelope up? Tires, brakes, etc cost more and wear out faster running up the cost to play. Stop with the adders and start doing a deduct if needed. Damn you guys get closer to the reason I left prod years ago with a new set of "I can fix it" every few years.

[Knestis]

I'm a long way from upset and I utterly DO NOT care about 50 pounds on a couple of cars.

I care about fidelity of the process and making the system work (i.e., where a board doesn't implicitly pressure an ad hoc to do - or not do - something because it's going to "look bad").

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm a long way from upset and I utterly DO NOT care about 50 pounds on a couple of cars.

I care about fidelity of the process and making the system work (i.e., where a board doesn't implicitly pressure an ad hoc to do - or not do - something because it's going to "look bad").

K

Troof.

[lateapex911]

I'm a long way from upset and I utterly DO NOT care about 50 pounds on a couple of cars.

I care about fidelity of the process and making the system work (i.e., where a board doesn't implicitly pressure an ad hoc to do - or not do - something because it's going to "look bad").

K

I agree. Anytime the phrase "It's not like XX pounds is going to make the difference", I cringe a bit, as I fear the point is being missed.


Two points though. One, nobody on the ITAC has said "The CRB is saying 'do this' or 'Don't do that'", if I read correctly. My take is that the ITAC fears they will, or, perhaps, they wish not to 'go there'.

Second, an observance....You (Kirk), myself, and Andy are ' dig our heels in' types when it comes to points of fidelity of procedures and processes, and...surprise...we're the ones that either left on principal or were kinda pushed to leave on the same principal.

[lateapex911]

Wrong.

The reason offered above on many occasions for "no DW adder" in ITR was most cars had DW. That's false. BMWs, Ponies, some Toyotas, some Nissans, and I am sure some others don't.

....

If we are going to have a DW adder it makes no sense to have it in 3 classes and not one.

I have no idea why you are so upset about this, which involves 50 lbs on cars with 200+ whp.

First, I'd like to thank Jeff, and Chip for hanging out and shooting the shit on this. Much appreciated. I remember being on the ITAC, and having different opinions about issues than other ITAC guys, and thats fine, it was always eye opening. So, I hope my comments are taken with the respect I intend them to have.

On the suspension type, I'd still like to see the breakdown. Further the cars you (sans the Ponies which get the stick subtractor) mention are all RWD, and have sophisticated suspension at the drive end. (Unless you are talking about the Celica thing, which I'm not well versed in right now), but Supras do have a multi link rear end, IIRC.

I see it the situation as:
The ITR class was always considered, from the outset, to have more sophisticated suspensions as the 'norm', and deviations from that, such as live rear axles, (This subtractor came later after much whining on my part, and to your point Jeff about having things in one class yet not in another not making sense, here's one, it doesn't apply to the lower classes, right?) and strut fronts on cars with FWD got weight breaks. We discussed it committee (check the notes) and it was decided that we were concerned with drive end geometries, and thats why we did as we did.

So... The ops manual, as Josh points out, has a typo.
Fix that. It's just a typo. Easy fix.

And, from a proper procedure standpoint, the cars classed differently (the Vette, evidently) should be adjusted to match the previous method.
(And saying it doesn't matter because it's just 50lbs, or that it's going to spank the pony cars, is missing the core issue, and is not a reason not to set it to the proper weight, in my opinion.)

Doing otherwise, is putting the cart before the horse.

Now, if you then decide that the judgement of the previous ITAC was wrong, either in it's count of cars to determine the "norm", or in it's application of the granularity of adders and subractors, then go ahead, research and make changes. (changing, say 12 cars is no different than changing 13 cars)

But, if thats the plan, I suggest that careful thought is given as to the weight issue. (Instead of adding to certain cars, don't add to those same cars, but give all others the equivalent break? If I follow your ideas, this shouldn't affect the E36, which was set as low as it could go, IIRC)

[Z3_GoCar]

There are some solid axle rear suspensions that are more sophisticated than the semi-trailing arm suspension on the back of the Z3's. So, no I wouldn't say that all BMW's have sophisticated rear suspensions. How do they handle the e-30 vis-a-vis the e-36 in ITS?

[Knestis]

There are some solid axle rear suspensions that are more sophisticated than the semi-trailing arm suspension on the back of the Z3's. So, no I wouldn't say that all BMW's have sophisticated rear suspensions. How do they handle the e-30 vis-a-vis the e-36 in ITS?

Argh.

They DON'T "handle the difference" to that degree of granularity. The whole point of the Process exercise - its first principle - was to make the specification (weight-setting) of IT cars as transparent and repeatable as possible, accepting that it was impossible to accommodate all of the different little design differences among the cars listed.

And THAT moves from the even more basic understanding that the influence of those myriad factors are noise lost in the influence of the big factors that account for the greatest percentage of "competitiveness" on the track - budget (time and money) and driver skill. The rules can't control those factors.

Kirk (who's increasingly worried that when Jeff goes, we'll be officially headed into another ITAC dark age)